Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 21
April 21[edit]
Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Spinboy 18:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Calum Marsh[edit]
Vanity, non-notable. Fails the pokemon test. Delete. --Spinboy 03:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment"Calum Marsh" gets about 82 Google hits, but only from 9 pages, the rest being omitted results from similar pages. He appears to be a real guy, who's made real films. Anyone in Canada able to shed light on this?-LtNOWIS 05:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 05:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I attend Carleton University, and Calum Marsh is a considerably well-known director here. His film just premiered at our film festival a few weeks ago. I think he's also a writer or something too for the newspaper.
- Do Not Delete, established enough to justify notation. He is notably well-known in Ontario.
- Comment was left by 134.117.185.17. --Spinboy 05:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.Not notable. Would like to get input from a Canadian, though. -Casito⇝User talk:CasitoTalk 05:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I am Canadian, and I've never heard of him. --Spinboy 05:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I am a Canadian, and I'm familiar with the director and his films. --JohnMarkham 01:59, 21 Apr 2005 (EST)
- I also live in Ottawa, and I don't attend Carleton University. The people who created or worked on thie article seem to be CU students, if not Calum himself. --Spinboy 06:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Karl Dietz I'm in Ottawa, I've heard of Marsh. I think he's doing some filming in our part of town next (the "Nepean")Do not delete
- That was from User:Karl dietz. --Spinboy 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Karl, did you already vote as the numbered user up there? --Spinboy 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete: I attend Ottawa University and have heard of both this director and his most recent film. --Flabergasted 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Ottawa University is in Ottawa, Kansas. The accredited universities in Ottawa, Ontario are Carleton University and the University of Ottawa. You'd think a student there might know the name of the school.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I attend Carleton, and have never heard of him. Don't know if that's reason enough to delete him. --
Earl Andrew - talk 06:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Comment: I notice how many new users are suddenly voting on this. I cannot help but wonder how many of them are the same person. --Spinboy 06:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers You may enjoy this Spinboy.
- That's from User:Ottawa99. And I've read it. I'm still allowed my opinion that the same person is voting here under different names. --Spinboy 06:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sock puppets are not welcome in wikipedia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sock puppets are not welcome in wikipedia. --
- That's from User:Ottawa99. And I've read it. I'm still allowed my opinion that the same person is voting here under different names. --Spinboy 06:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I assumed that you had read it; but there is no need to be so suspicious in such a simple process of voting. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that you have several other accounts which you are using to vote against this, but no respectful person would make such an aligation. Ottawa99 06:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I am deeply offended by that. I DO NOT HAVE another account. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. --Spinboy 06:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, I'm pretty sure that I exist. Maybe I should check again? Johnmarkham 06:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Note: You have been listed as a sockpuppet of User:JohnMarkham -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Note: You have been listed as a sockpuppet of User:JohnMarkham --
- Delete. Not notable. Xezbeth 06:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Guess what? This was all a less-than-elaborate joke. Hope you had fun wasting your time discussing it you friggin' nerds. So go ahead and delete it and ban this account and all of the others because it's all a sham. Calum Marsh is the figment of your imagination and does not exist. The Charlatan is a fake paper and he never wrote for it. Those articles on the site? Oh those are all fake. And the five films the non-existent Calum made? Yeah those are made up. Those screenshots are photoshopped stills from The Passion Of The Christ.
Goodnight ya morons! Johnmarkham 06:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weather he exists or not isn't being debated. He hasn't done anything worth being included in an encyclopedia. And please no personal attacks. --Spinboy 07:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I happen to know the Charlatan exists ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- He managed to get nerds to discuss it all night, I'd say that's noteworthy Johnmarkham 07:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- We're not nerds, and that's not notable. Please stop attacking us. --Spinboy 07:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I happen to know the Charlatan exists ;-) --
- Weather he exists or not isn't being debated. He hasn't done anything worth being included in an encyclopedia. And please no personal attacks. --Spinboy 07:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless notability established. Showing a film at a student festival just doesn't clear the bar for me. He's only nineteen—he's still got lots of time to make his mark. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. hoax and sockpuppetcruft. RickK 19:48, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing from a Google search comes back as anything noteworthy. Saopaulo1 21:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Marsh may not have done anything "notworthy" by your standards, but have you? If we google you, would anything other than "wikipedia posting addict" appear? He had done alot, i'm from south of toronto and i've heard of Marsh. I've actually seen a film, so hows the for notable. If he has his film playing basially at different ends of the province, i think thats something. He's ran them at film fextivals, just because they are world renouned ones doesnt mean they arnt something. everyone has to start somewhere and he is notable for doing so. Also, dont you think he deserves something for getting all this talk about him by everyone here? He is far more notable than you,and until you can prove you've done something remotely close to his success, why woulud you care so much if he's deleted?--sades1313 01:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Most of us haven't done anything notable, and there isn't an article on us in Wikipedia either. --Spinboy 01:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Jayjg (talk) 06:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: First of all the article isn't verry notable, second of all the user uses Sock Puppets to defend the article (Notice how a majority of them use "Do not delete" instead of "Keep" when voting) third of all the user resorts to making lame personal attacks (claiming we are "Nerds" and "Not Notable") also in one he claims that he made the whole thing up (which I doubt is true but still...)Deathawk 22:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The fact the anons aren't even using correct VfD terminology says it all. Hedley 22:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)Speedy delete as hoax. Hedley 22:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
List of the Great Boners of all time (now List of incidents famously considered great blunders)[edit]
This discussion has become very long, and is no longer being shown directly on this page in order to improve performance. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 17:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. --Spinboy 06:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Montréal Expos and Montreal Expos[edit]
This team has moved to Washington, D.C. and is now known as the Washington Nationals. As has been pointed out on the talk page, it is the same franchise. The Washington Nationals article discusses the complete history of the franchise, including its days in Montreal. Hence, this separate page is redundant. Also, other franchises that have moved only have one page (e.g., Brooklyn Dodgers --> Los Angeles Dodgers and Seattle Pilots --> Milwaukee Brewers and St. Louis Browns --> Baltimore Orioles. All redirect to the team's current name. This page, as well as Montreal Expos, should redirect to Washington Nationals. All relevant information is already included there, so there is no need to merge.--Canoeguy81 05:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This borders on silly. The teams are entirely distinct, and the histories of the two teams will be entirely divergent. Fans of the former team are not fans of the new team, and fans of the new team don't care about or likely know much about the history of the old team. One team died and the other inherited its players (not its name or logo or mascot or anything else), that's all. The LA Dodgers kept the same name and had the same owner, there's a certain sense of continuity, a sense that the Brooklyn Dodgers history is part of the LA Dodgers history. There is no such continuity here, the Nationals are starting fresh, in every aspect except their starting lineup they are effectively an expansion franchise. -- Curps 05:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Do your research more closely. The franchise chose to change its name. Franchises sometimes change their names (Browns to Orioles, Senators to Twins) and sometimes they don't (Lakers, Jazz, Dodgers). The Nats could have kept their name, their logo, their mascot...those were business decisions. The Nats are not starting fresh. They use the same spring training facility, they take the same history of statistics, and the same retired numbers (Carter, Dawson, Staub). The same contracts are continued. Kingturtle 17:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There are separate articles for the Washington Senators and the Minnesota Twins. Even though they're the same franchise, the Twins have a distinct history from the Senators, especially nearly half a century after the move. Iceberg3k 19:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- The only reason there is a Washington Senators article is because there were two MLB teams called that. The page is a disamb page. Kingturtle 20:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- the same people own the nats right now who owned expos last season mlb. a certain sense of continuity how about the same manager gm and players, spring training location.Smith03 20:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There are separate articles for the Washington Senators and the Minnesota Twins. Even though they're the same franchise, the Twins have a distinct history from the Senators, especially nearly half a century after the move. Iceberg3k 19:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Do your research more closely. The franchise chose to change its name. Franchises sometimes change their names (Browns to Orioles, Senators to Twins) and sometimes they don't (Lakers, Jazz, Dodgers). The Nats could have kept their name, their logo, their mascot...those were business decisions. The Nats are not starting fresh. They use the same spring training facility, they take the same history of statistics, and the same retired numbers (Carter, Dawson, Staub). The same contracts are continued. Kingturtle 17:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Teams that move cities and change names are effecively different. Consider the Cleveland Browns. They moved to Baltimore, became the Ravens, and a few years later a NEW franchise called the Browns was put in place in Cleveland as a CONTINUATION of the old franchise. We need to keep articles like this. — FoodMarket  talk! 06:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Foodmarket, that is technically not true. Yes, the Cleveland Browns and the Baltimore Ravens have separate articles, but only because the NFL considers them two different teams. But Houston Oilers redirects to Tennessee Titans because the league considers it the same franchise with the same history. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- When the Browns expansion franchise was created, a significant part of the agreement was that the NFL would take the unprecedented step of reverting the Cleveland history of the former franchise to the new team; previously, records of all franchises went with them when a team relocated. The Cleveland Browns have to be regarded as a departure from the norm in this case. MisfitToys 20:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Just because we have the franchise now (I live near DC) doesn't mean we can completely ignore the fact that the team had a home in Montral for a long time. Mo0[talk] 06:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems we have conflicting policies regarding this issue regarding teams who move to a different city and change their name. As I stated above, the Houston Oilers redirects to Tennessee Titans because the league considers it the same franchise with the same history. Buffalo Braves redirects to Los Angeles Clippers because it is the same NBA team. But for NHL teams, Québec Nordiques and Colorado Avalanche are on separate articles, and Winnipeg Jets and Phoenix Coyotes are separated too. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The people doing the hockey pages are doing it wrong. I will be discussing with them the idea of changing those articles to redirects. Kingturtle 07:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- These discussions would be futile. Official NHL sources split their franchises to individual teams, with a separate section on the Dallas Stars and the Minnesota North Stars (the major exception is the Seals). Even official NBA sources (last time I checked) do the same. To not do the same in Wikipedia is ludicrous. kelvSYC 03:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Better check your sources more closely. For example, in the Warriors' media guide they list Wilt Chamberlain as holding the team record for points in a game, even though he did it when the team called Philadelphia home. Kingturtle 04:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Records and statistics, maybe. Team histories, which are more important in Wikipedia, no. kelvSYC 01:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Better check your sources more closely. For example, in the Warriors' media guide they list Wilt Chamberlain as holding the team record for points in a game, even though he did it when the team called Philadelphia home. Kingturtle 04:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- These discussions would be futile. Official NHL sources split their franchises to individual teams, with a separate section on the Dallas Stars and the Minnesota North Stars (the major exception is the Seals). Even official NBA sources (last time I checked) do the same. To not do the same in Wikipedia is ludicrous. kelvSYC 03:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Also, shouldn't this issue be confined to the article's talk page instead of here on VfD? Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed on the talk page, and the result of the debate seemed to be in favor of moving everything to Washington Nationals. That change was made, then reverted by an edit, made again, and reverted again. That's why it's on a vfd.--Canoeguy81 07:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The people doing the hockey pages are doing it wrong. I will be discussing with them the idea of changing those articles to redirects. Kingturtle 07:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The Washington Nationals article was edited to remove all Montreal Expos history AFTER this vfd was posted. Also, if the result of this debate is a keep, should the histories of the two Washington Senators franchises be moved from their current locations (Texas Rangers and Minnesota Twins) and included with the Washington Nationals?--Canoeguy81 07:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I should also point out that Major League Baseball's official site recognizes that the Expos and the Nationals are the same franchise and lists Expos records and history under the Nationals' website.--Canoeguy81 08:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- REDIRECT to Washington Nationals. They are the same franchise. Kingturtle 07:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Baseball-reference.com is not an official site, but it tries very hard to compile this as accurately as possible. Please note how they include Montreal stats in their all-time records for Washington Nationals hitters and Washington Nationals pitchers.
- Philadelphia Athletics and Kansas City Athletics redirect to Oakland Athletics
- (dozens of other examples moved to talk page)
- Since nobody seems to think these should be deleted (but rather made redirects or kept, what is this doing here?--Samuel J. Howard 09:12, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Since it was nominated in good faith, but consensus says to keep. So let's keep it. Radiant_* 10:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you are voting to KEEP simply because that's what others are doing? Kingturtle 17:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - separate the articles and provide links, i.e, the Expos' article ends with reference to the Nats, and the Nats' articles begins with reference to the 'Spos. There is enough material for two articles, so let's keep it that way. Ground Zero 14:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with GrounD Zero, that is exactly how it should be handled ---FoodMarket talk! 15:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that there's enough material for two articles is immaterial; there's enough material for several articles on the Braves franchise, but the appropriate way to handle that is to have a main article (Atlanta Braves) and have that article link to articles on different aspects of the franchise's history – NOT to have separate articles for the Boston Braves and Milwaukee Braves. The same is true here. MisfitToys 20:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Certainly notable. They weren't a one-season team like the Seattle Pilots. To the contrary, they were in Montréal for over three decades, and the fiasco with being owned by MLB, the John Henry / Jeff Loria switch, gutting the team of veteran talent during their last 5-10 years in Montréal, and playing a lot of "home" games in Puerto Rico (thousands of miles away from their home park) certainly makes this worthy of a keep. Go Nats, but remember the Expos too. --Idont Havaname 15:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The franchise is the same. For other examples, please see this article's TALK page. Kingturtle 17:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Definitely notable. Definitely distinct from the new team. GrantNeufeld 15:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The Nats are not a different team from the Expos. It is the same franchise. Kingturtle 17:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Team and franchise are two different concepts. You can move the management, you can move the players, you can even move the "franchise", but you can't move the team. The entity that was the Expos was based in Montreal. Now everything that made the Expos a team is gone, and the governing franchise decided to open another operation down south in Washington. Same franchise, new team. - Pioneer-12 18:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The Nats are not a different team from the Expos. It is the same franchise. Kingturtle 17:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Definitely notable. Definitely distinct from the new team. --Spinboy 16:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It is not distinct from the new team. they are the same team - just under a new name. please see the long list of examples in this TALK page.
- I just feel bad for the kid who goes to Montreal Expos, gets redirected to Nats page (if you we do decide to redir, which i do NOT recommend) and gets frustrated and turns to another source, even IF the info is somewhere in the Nats article. There needs to be a separate article ---FoodMarket talk! 17:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Foodmarket, you've expressed exactly what the issue is. Whether or not someone feels bad about it - that should not come into the equation here. We can't go pussy-footing around being afraid of how a reader might react. The fact is that the Montreal Expos franchise has moved the Washington....and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ examples I have listed in this TALK page. Kingturtle 21:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Do you think we should redirect dinosaurs to birds? Hey one became the other and the original doesn't exist anymore... ---FoodMarket talk! 23:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Kingturtle, we're building this encyclopedia for readers, and if they are annoyed or frustrated ("feel bad") or can't easily find what they're looking for, then we're failing. Of course that comes into the equation. -- Curps 23:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A redirect allows the reader to find what they are looking for. Kingturtle 23:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Not if they want only info on the Montreal Expos ---FoodMarket talk! 00:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Foodmarket, you've expressed exactly what the issue is. Whether or not someone feels bad about it - that should not come into the equation here. We can't go pussy-footing around being afraid of how a reader might react. The fact is that the Montreal Expos franchise has moved the Washington....and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ examples I have listed in this TALK page. Kingturtle 21:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep- Notable and should be seperate.
- Comment The general rule in Wikipedia is to split off even closely related topics or subtopics when there's enough material for two articles. Thus, for instance, we have Italy and History of Italy and Geography of Italy, and Mars and Mars in fiction. So arguments that the Nationals and Expos ought to be considered the same franchise would be irrelevant even if they were true... Expos information should still be split off into its own article. There is enough material for two articles, and people looking for information about one will rarely be interested in the other. Technicalities aside, they are two distinct topics. -- Curps 17:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment For what it's worth, Soviet Union does not redirect to Russia even though Russia is considered the successor state to the Soviet Union (inheriting its United Nations Security Council seat, honoring its treaties and assuming its foreign debt, etc). -- Curps 17:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- True, but the Soviet Union didn't merely change its name. It's different country (actually several) with a new constitution. That's not the case here; there aren't separate articles for Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali, for instance. MisfitToys 20:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - maybe years from now when people have forgotten about the Expos, we can simply redirect it. To do so now would be extremely hasty, they are still seen as different teams, one defunct and one new. Adam Bishop 17:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Adam there is no defunct team. The Expos team moved to Washington and the nickname changed to Nationals. Kingturtle 17:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This isn't the proper venue, because nobody wants an outright deletion. If the talk page is deadlocked, then next time post a Request for Comment. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I concur with TenOfAllTrades that vfd is not the place. (On such an rfc, I'd agree to keep independently for reasons provided by Curps, Ground Zero and others. (And how silly is it gonna look to have not only most of the article Washington Nationals about Montréal stuff, but to have to have it in both Category:Montreal sports and Category:Washington, DC sports? Oh, and maybe Category:Sports in Puerto Rico...) Samaritan 19:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. I wouldn't advocate this if the case were sui generis, but the St. Louis Browns → Baltimore Orioles redirect seems a compelling precedent. Firebug 18:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect and put all of the history back into the Washington Nationals article. These are not separate teams -- all of the team records are carried forward. The only exception to this is when the Cleveland Browns moved to Balitmore and became the Baltimore Ravens. The Browns' records were kept with the new Browns team, and not carried with the Ravens. RickK 19:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- The point is moot. Even if you considered them to be the same team (and fans in both cities most certainly don't), there is ample precedent for splitting off sections of a too-large article into a separate page, even if they were on the same topic (or one is a sub-topic of the other). And how would you integrate the "Players of note" and "Retired numbers" sections of the two pages? Is Gary Carter in the hall of fame as a National now? Finally, is it helpful to Nationals fans to make them wade through an entire article's worth of material on the Expos in chronological order (which could be expanded even further) to get to material about the team they're actually interested in? It's simply a disservice to readers to merge these two distinct topics. -- Curps 20:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting that you bring up Gary Carter. No Washington National can wear the number 8 (Gary Carter), 10 (Andre Dawson and Rusty Staub), because those numbers are retired, and it is still the same TEAM. Kingturtle 04:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What do you mean the point is moot? You mean that it's a fait accompli and therefore we can't fix it? We then need to split the Brooklyn Dodgers out of the Los Angeles Dodgers, the New York Giants out of the San Francisco Giants, ad nauseum. This is a violation of established precedent. RickK 21:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- What I mean is simply that even if we accepted the argument that this was the same franchise or team, there would still be plenty of precedent in Wikipedia for splitting off the Montreal Expos history into its own article (Mars in fiction is split from Mars, etc) on grounds of length alone. In arguing over supposed precedents, I think you're losing sight of the core issue: what is the most helpful presentation for readers? In cases where fans of the new team have no interest in the history or traditions of the old team, readers looking for information about the new team will likewise very likely not be interested in (lengthy!) information about the old team (but if they want it, it's just a wikilink click away). -- Curps 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There are no precedents of MLB team pages being split up in regards to franchise history. Quite the opposite, all former franchise teams redirect to the current MLB team in wikipedia. Kingturtle 17:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What I mean is simply that even if we accepted the argument that this was the same franchise or team, there would still be plenty of precedent in Wikipedia for splitting off the Montreal Expos history into its own article (Mars in fiction is split from Mars, etc) on grounds of length alone. In arguing over supposed precedents, I think you're losing sight of the core issue: what is the most helpful presentation for readers? In cases where fans of the new team have no interest in the history or traditions of the old team, readers looking for information about the new team will likewise very likely not be interested in (lengthy!) information about the old team (but if they want it, it's just a wikilink click away). -- Curps 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The point is moot. Even if you considered them to be the same team (and fans in both cities most certainly don't), there is ample precedent for splitting off sections of a too-large article into a separate page, even if they were on the same topic (or one is a sub-topic of the other). And how would you integrate the "Players of note" and "Retired numbers" sections of the two pages? Is Gary Carter in the hall of fame as a National now? Finally, is it helpful to Nationals fans to make them wade through an entire article's worth of material on the Expos in chronological order (which could be expanded even further) to get to material about the team they're actually interested in? It's simply a disservice to readers to merge these two distinct topics. -- Curps 20:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The franchise may carry the stats of the old team, but the Montreal Expos have a history distinct from the Washington Whatevers. --NormanEinstein 20:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Only redirect to the new team if the old team does not have enough info to have a standalone Wikipage, which is not the case with the Expos. Also, a page on the Washington team is unlikely to include things relevant to the French baseball culture in Montreal. -- PFHLai 20:18, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
- Comment: When we have Wikipedians willing and ready to contribute content to have a standalone page for
the old teamthe team before the move, we should let them have their own page aboutthe old teamthe team before the move. The page of thethe new teamthe team after the move should have a paragraph or a section about the team's history, which mentionsthe old teamthe team before the move. I don't see what's wrong with keeping the Expos page alive for this purpose. -- PFHLai 23:55, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
- Comment: When we have Wikipedians willing and ready to contribute content to have a standalone page for
- Strong Keep It existed and had that history. If the history is needed for the new team, then a link back to here with a brief summary on the new page is the best way to handle it. Vegaswikian 21:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- you seem to misunderstand, the Washington Nationals are not a new team. They are an old team with a new location. Kingturtle 21:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- For all intents and purposes, apart from the technicality of how they acquired their starting lineup, they are a new team. And as argued above, the old team vs. new team debate is beside the point: the length issue alone would argue in favor of separate articles. Go to the History of Italy article: there are five separate sub-articles on History of Italy during Roman times, History of Italy during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, etc. etc. By length alone, we'd need a Washington Nationals during the Expos years article... so why not just call it Montreal Expos? -- Curps 22:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- They are NOT a new team. When a franchise moves, so with it moves its records. The Los Angeles Dodgers article lists the team's championships. The Sacramento Kings article lists the 1951 NBA Championship won when the team was in Rochester and called the Royals. Who is the all-time stolen base and all-time triples leader for the Baltimore Orioles franchise? George Sisler, who did it when the franchise was in St. Louis. Kingturtle 23:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- For all intents and purposes, apart from the technicality of how they acquired their starting lineup, they are a new team. And as argued above, the old team vs. new team debate is beside the point: the length issue alone would argue in favor of separate articles. Go to the History of Italy article: there are five separate sub-articles on History of Italy during Roman times, History of Italy during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, etc. etc. By length alone, we'd need a Washington Nationals during the Expos years article... so why not just call it Montreal Expos? -- Curps 22:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A baseball franchise is much more than its players, coaches, and records. Much of the notability stems from its location and impact on local culture, as well. The fact that we don't have separate articles for most of these cases is a weakness. not a precedent. Since we have enough material it would be a crime to redirect in this case, IMO ---FoodMarket talk! 23:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article. Read Memphis Grizzlies and New Orleans Hornets to see how those articles deal with the Vacouver Grizzlies and the Charlotte Hornets. This is standard practice in Wikipedia. Kingturtle 01:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The Grizzlies had a terrible time in Vancouver, no one wants to write about that. With the lack of quality content, naturally the page will shrink and become a redirect. The Dodgers, the Giants and the Expos, on the other hand, each has a wonder story to tell. If someone wants to write a Wikipage, why not let them ? There is no reason to have a rigid policy and delete the Montréal Expos page. -- PFHLai 05:03, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
- Here's why we should let them: because it is the same team! should we have different articles for Lady Diana and Diana, Princess of Wales? No, because she's the same person! Kingturtle 06:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How about the Soviet Union, Commonwealth of Independent States, Russian SFSR and Russia ? .... BTW, the Expos and the Nats are in different cities, have different owners and different fans. If the writers of the Wikipages of the two teams wants to split up and write about different things, let them, as long as both pages are good pages. -- PFHLai 08:52, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
- For the last couple seasons, Major League Baseball owned the Expos. Now, Major League Baseball owns the Nationals. That's the same owner. I don't understand why so many people say they had different owners. --Canoeguy81 16:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please see my response at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos#Re: Expos/Nats Ownership. -- PFHLai 23:26, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
- For the last couple seasons, Major League Baseball owned the Expos. Now, Major League Baseball owns the Nationals. That's the same owner. I don't understand why so many people say they had different owners. --Canoeguy81 16:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How about the Soviet Union, Commonwealth of Independent States, Russian SFSR and Russia ? .... BTW, the Expos and the Nats are in different cities, have different owners and different fans. If the writers of the Wikipages of the two teams wants to split up and write about different things, let them, as long as both pages are good pages. -- PFHLai 08:52, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
- Here's why we should let them: because it is the same team! should we have different articles for Lady Diana and Diana, Princess of Wales? No, because she's the same person! Kingturtle 06:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The Grizzlies had a terrible time in Vancouver, no one wants to write about that. With the lack of quality content, naturally the page will shrink and become a redirect. The Dodgers, the Giants and the Expos, on the other hand, each has a wonder story to tell. If someone wants to write a Wikipage, why not let them ? There is no reason to have a rigid policy and delete the Montréal Expos page. -- PFHLai 05:03, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
- Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article. Read Memphis Grizzlies and New Orleans Hornets to see how those articles deal with the Vacouver Grizzlies and the Charlotte Hornets. This is standard practice in Wikipedia. Kingturtle 01:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- you seem to misunderstand, the Washington Nationals are not a new team. They are an old team with a new location. Kingturtle 21:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- From the Washington Nationals article -- "Coincidentally, the last time a MLB team moved to a new city was in 1972, when the previous franchise to operate in the DC area, the Washington Senators, moved to Texas, becoming the Texas Rangers." So if we have separate articles for the _last MLB move_ why not now? ---FoodMarket talk!
- That is a disamb page, which *I* did the major rewrite back when I was a rookie in Wikipedia. I didn't know how to make disamb pages correctly. :) let me make some adjustments. Kingturtle 01:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- what do you mean? that's right fron washington nationals isnt it? ---FoodMarket talk! 01:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, i thought you were talking specifically about the Washington Senators article. Kingturtle 01:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, no redirect - policy on team pages in other sports (eg. ice hockey, for which I am a WikiProject member) has it that ideally, each incarnation of a team has a separate article (there are, of course, other practical considerations). You lose too much information if you just redirect it all into the "newest team" article. kelvSYC 03:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The nomination was to redirect, not to delete. If it's an easy redirect, be bold. If it's controversial, seek concensus on the respective article Talk pages, not here. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Different teams; "See alsos" work just fine. Jayjg (talk) 06:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable and distinct. El_C 07:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The Expos are not the Nationals. Simple as that. Distinct histories, distinct pages.--Michaelk 00:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The Expos ARE the Nationals. Read their media guide. Why don't you take a look a the Washington National's Official Webpage as it lays out its all-time leaders in Games Play. Tim Wallach? Gary Carter? They never played in Washington. Yet this is coming from the OFFICIAL WEBSITE of the WASHINGTON NATIONALS. Kingturtle 00:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Why not have this debate in ten years. The Montreal Expos are still in the hearts and minds of many people; many of whom are deeply disappointed at the city's loss. This deletion serves no purpose other than to erase them from the pages of history. While we're at it, let's delete New Amsterdam (New York City) or let's just redirect thirteen colonies and British North America to United States. Hey, how about Abraham Lincoln redirected to George W. Bush?
- Article names are not driven by emotions. As for Lincoln and Bush, they were two different people. The Expos and the Nationals are the same franchise. Kingturtle 19:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Same franchise, but different location, different fans, different audience. I was a fan of the Baltimore Colts...I have zero interest in the Indianapolis Colts. Ask anyone in Baltimore. And I'll bet the same feelings previal in Montreal. I hate that Baltimore Colts redirect.--Jmj1000 16:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The choices we make on article titles are not to be based on feelings - they are based on conventions and standards and logic. It is the same franchise. There are dozens of examples of this precendent in the NBA, NFL and MLB articles. Every other baseball team in Wikipedia holds the history of its own franchise movement; just because some Expos fans are mad or sad or upset or angry doesn't mean the Expos/Nats issue should be treated any differently. Kingturtle 18:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Kingturtle the Expos and the Nationals are the same franchise. Wikipedia should have the same policy for all sport teams when a team moves unless there is some special or unqiue circumstances ie Cleveland Browns, where the NFL clearly made it a spereate team. I am from Minnesota and would not support a seprate Minnesota North Stars or Minneapolis Lakers article, thoses teams moved and their history becomes part of the new club ie Dallas Stars and Los Angeles Lakers. The Norquies, Jets and Whalers should be merger with Colorado, Phoenix and Carolina. Smith03 18:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all former MLB teams -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP NHL teams have their own defunct franchise page, why not MLB? Whether MLB considers the Expos as a distinct franchise or not should be irrelevant: MLB played the principle role in killing baseball in Montreal through picking cronies of Bud Selig who would gut the team after the city refused to pay for a new baseball stadium. Using MLB's opinion as a crutch to support an argument against a seperate Montreal page is ludicrous. MLB wants Expos history to be brushed over, because it highlights their sins and incompetence in running baseball. -- Flynn
- The above was from Flynnie (talk · contribs). Comment was at the top (before proposer's comments), moved to the bottom. -- Curps 04:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Flynn, you're now bringing conspiracy theory into the mix. wikipedia should not cowtow to such emotions and to such inventions of conspiracies. the bottomline is that the expos and the nats are the same franchise, and all other MLB franchises carry with them their place and name histories. As for their time in Montreal, they finished last in NL attendance for seven years running (1998 - 2004) - and that streak started long before MLB took the franchise over. Furthermore, between 1984 and 2004, Montreal only twice finished as high as 8th in NL attendance, and those years were '84 and '85. So one can argue that the principle role in killing baseball in Montreal was lack of fan support. Kingturtle 07:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Bud Selig's own Milwaukee Brewers have an even more pitiful attendance record than Montreal. Your own ignorance about what happened with the Expos should not be used against the team. Read 'la Defense de Montreal' before you talk. What happened with the Expos was a travesty - no other sports team's fanbase has suffered through such a consistent effort by ownership and the league itself to poison enthusiasm in the insatiable quest for publicly funded stadiums, especially the Loria tenure that had some moves that bordered on racketeering. Flynnie
- The Bud Selig saga with the Brewers is a completely different story. Selig LIED that the Brewers were financially ruined, but they weren't. he used the lie to get a stadium - and that is disgusting. Although Milwaukee's attendance has been weak, it is not "more pitiful" than the Expos. The Brewers outdrew the Expos in each of the last seven seasons.
- Bud Selig's own Milwaukee Brewers have an even more pitiful attendance record than Montreal. Your own ignorance about what happened with the Expos should not be used against the team. Read 'la Defense de Montreal' before you talk. What happened with the Expos was a travesty - no other sports team's fanbase has suffered through such a consistent effort by ownership and the league itself to poison enthusiasm in the insatiable quest for publicly funded stadiums, especially the Loria tenure that had some moves that bordered on racketeering. Flynnie
*Extremely strong keep. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) WITHDRAWN
According to my tally keep received 26 votes to date, whereas redirect received 7 votes. I think both sides have made their point. Not much more needs to be said. I don't think an insurgence of redirect votes will come in so let's just keep the page.Trapper 00:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect despite 206.55.81.240's unsigned attempt to prematurely close discussion. —Wahoofive (Talk) 16:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- sorry just learned how to signTrapper
As stated earlier I feel this should be redirect to Washington, however Wikipedia needs to have a constitent policy. So if it is decided that the Montreal Expos should have it own page that would also mean the Los Angeles Angels, California Angels, Anaheim Angels whould each have it own page along with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.Smith03 18:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PROPOSAL: While debate is still open and I don't want to seem presumptuous, it does seem that a consensus is forming to keep the Montreal Expos page. Therefore, I offer the following suggestion. Because the Expos' history (records, retired numbers, &c.) has transferred to the Nationals, the Nationals' article should still address the franchise's history as the Montreal Expos, albeit in brief. A link would direct the reader to the "main article" on the franchise's history in Montreal (see United States for an example). I don't think there's any reason to exclude the history of the franchise from when it played in a different city. That would only confuse the informed reader who knows of the team's history and would give a false impression of the team's youth to the ignorant one. I agree with Smith03 that there should be a uniform policy, and the consensus that's building seems to be that if there is enough information to warrant an article under a franchise's old name, then it should exist. So, in the case of the Angels, if there is enough history for each individual incarnation of the franchise (i.e., Los Angeles Angels, California Angels, Anaheim Angels, and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim), then each page should exist, but the page with the team's current name should be comprehensive. In other words, it should address the franchise's entire history, from 1961 to present. The other pages would address the team's history only under that name, and then link to the franchise's other articles.--Canoeguy81 22:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps Wikipedia's "consistent policy" could be redirecting defunct team pages that fail to meet a minimum word count. Over time, defunct teams that get little or no direct hits become permanent redirects.Trapper 00:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- keep it please, a redirect doesnot make sense. !Yuckfoo 00:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This information is certainly of sufficinet historic interest to warrant retention. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Canada's first home team is an important part of the country's baseball heritage. --Madchester 05:16, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
- Comment. I can't believe Montreal let the Expos go. "Washington Nationals" sounds like a team that looses to the Harlem Globetrotters. - Pioneer-12 13:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That would be the Washington Generals. Ellsworth 21:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain.Frankly, if this is kept as a separate article or as a redirect, it makes no difference in terms of overall scope of information. Only the organization of the information will be affected. Either way, the kids will be alright. I do think old-time Expo fans would prefer to have the pages seperate, though. When baseball franchises move to another city and change their name, they do become a different entity. The whole concept of a baseball franchise "moving" is a bit of a lie. They only move in the most technical sense of the word. For all intents and purposes, the old franchise dies, and a new one is built elsewhere using it's bones and ashes. - Pioneer-12 13:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)- That franchises move is not a lie. *ALL* contracts of the Expos are now with the Nats. *ALL* records of the Expos are now with the Nats. *ALL* retired numbers of the Expos are now retired numbers of the Nats. The Oakland Athletics, for example, own and display the World Series trophies the franchise won in Philadelphia. Kingturtle 15:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Then why did they move away from their hometown, their stadium, and their fans? Why did they abandon their name? They even left their country. Players are traded to different teams all the time. The Nationals may have some of the bones and ashes, but the Montreal Expos are dead. The Nationals should just admit it. It's not like many Expo fans are gonna to travel to Washington anyway. It is a sad day for baseball. Now that I think about it, it is clearly better to have these as two seperate pages. (The individual length of the pages will justify the seperation, in any case.) You don't want a bunch of angry Canadians on your hands, do you? Changing vote to Keep.
Viva Canada! - Pioneer-12 23:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- They moved away because the franchise was losing money in Montreal. They were placing last in NL attendance for 8 years running. TV ratings were awful. When the Washington Senators moved to Minnesota, they changed the team name. When the 2nd Washington Senators moved to Texas, the changed the team name. When the St. Louis Browns moved to Baltimore, they changed the team name. Every single MLB team in Wikipedia carries with it its franchise history. The Nats/Expos issue should not get special treatment. Kingturtle 06:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Then why did they move away from their hometown, their stadium, and their fans? Why did they abandon their name? They even left their country. Players are traded to different teams all the time. The Nationals may have some of the bones and ashes, but the Montreal Expos are dead. The Nationals should just admit it. It's not like many Expo fans are gonna to travel to Washington anyway. It is a sad day for baseball. Now that I think about it, it is clearly better to have these as two seperate pages. (The individual length of the pages will justify the seperation, in any case.) You don't want a bunch of angry Canadians on your hands, do you? Changing vote to Keep.
- That franchises move is not a lie. *ALL* contracts of the Expos are now with the Nats. *ALL* records of the Expos are now with the Nats. *ALL* retired numbers of the Expos are now retired numbers of the Nats. The Oakland Athletics, for example, own and display the World Series trophies the franchise won in Philadelphia. Kingturtle 15:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: Regarding retired numbers, the LA Dodgers still have Roy Campanella's number retired; the SF Giants still have the numbers retired for Carl Hubbell, Mel Ott, and Bill Terry; the Braves still have Warren Spahn's number retired. The Nats still have Dawson, Staub and Carter's numbers retired. Kingturtle 15:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- And every team has Jackie Robinson's number retired. -- PFHLai 23:26, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
- Extreme keep. This is a separate team from the Washington Nationals, with its own history and "culture". --Deathphoenix 21:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It is the same franchise. The Expos and the Nats are the same franchise. Kingturtle 22:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Same franchise does not mean it's the same team. Look, I can't stand spectator sports. I'm an anti-jock. I have zero patriotism for any of my local sports teams. That said, as a Wikipedian, I am for inclusion of meaningful articles, and for splitting into multiple articles where there is content to merit. The Expos article is a major case of a topic (or sub-topic) meriting its own article. Link it in with the new team that took the franchise, but don't diminish the content by taking away this article. GrantNeufeld 05:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Every single MLB team article in wikipedia carries with it its franchise history. The Expos/Nats issue should not get special treatment. Kingturtle 06:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There is no call for "special treatment". Every team with a history that moves and changes it's name should get a seperate entry for the previous name. If other teams don't have them, that's only because they haven't been created yet. Even if you don't think the old team is a seperate entity, it still deserves it's own page as a "major chapter" in the history of the current team. (It is not uncommon to split long, detailed histories into multiple pages.) Thus, whatever your personal beliefs about franchise reincarnation, there is no reason to deny this page. Also, merging the pages will create confusion. Gary Carter was an Expo and a Hall of Famer. He's even in the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame. He was never a National. Listing him as a "Hall of Famer for the Nationals" would be misleading. He belongs on the Expos page. The more I think about it, the more I see that it is just completely wrong to try to merge these pages. - Pioneer-12 07:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Other teams don't have separate entries because that's the precedent. It's the same way with the NBA team articles and the NFL team articles. As for confusion, it is not confusing or misleading that Walter Johnson is listed and discussed on the Minnesota Twins article, or that George Sisler is listed on the Baltimore Orioles article, or that Jim Bouton is mentioned on the Milwaukee Brewers article - and it isn't confusing or misleading that the Nats have Gary Carter's number retired. Kingturtle 07:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There is no call for "special treatment". Every team with a history that moves and changes it's name should get a seperate entry for the previous name. If other teams don't have them, that's only because they haven't been created yet. Even if you don't think the old team is a seperate entity, it still deserves it's own page as a "major chapter" in the history of the current team. (It is not uncommon to split long, detailed histories into multiple pages.) Thus, whatever your personal beliefs about franchise reincarnation, there is no reason to deny this page. Also, merging the pages will create confusion. Gary Carter was an Expo and a Hall of Famer. He's even in the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame. He was never a National. Listing him as a "Hall of Famer for the Nationals" would be misleading. He belongs on the Expos page. The more I think about it, the more I see that it is just completely wrong to try to merge these pages. - Pioneer-12 07:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Every single MLB team article in wikipedia carries with it its franchise history. The Expos/Nats issue should not get special treatment. Kingturtle 06:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Same franchise does not mean it's the same team. Look, I can't stand spectator sports. I'm an anti-jock. I have zero patriotism for any of my local sports teams. That said, as a Wikipedian, I am for inclusion of meaningful articles, and for splitting into multiple articles where there is content to merit. The Expos article is a major case of a topic (or sub-topic) meriting its own article. Link it in with the new team that took the franchise, but don't diminish the content by taking away this article. GrantNeufeld 05:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It is the same franchise. The Expos and the Nats are the same franchise. Kingturtle 22:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Can we put aside emotional appeals and just look at this objectly MLB is going to treat the Expos and Nats as the same franchise. If we decide to have two artcles for the same team, than here are some more teams that we need to change or start a project for in the NFL:
- Chicago Cardinals (1898-1959), St Louis Cardinals (1960-87), Phoenix Cardinals (1988-93), Dectaur Stayles, Chicago Stayles, Boston Braves Boston Redskins, Portsmouth Spartans, New York Titians, Boston Patroits, Houston Oilers Tennesse Oilers, Cleveland Rams, Los Angeles Rams, Los Angeles Raiders (Perhaps Oakland Raider 1960-1981) Dallas Texans (1960-62 AFL)
- NBA
- Minneapolis Lakers, Ft Wayne Pistons, Syracuse Nationals, Philadephia Warriors, San Francsico Warriors Buffalo Braves, Kansas City-Omaha Kings Kansas City Kings, Charlotte Hornets, Vancouver Grizzlies, San Diego Clippers, San Diego Rockets, Milwaukee Hawks, St Louis Hawks, Chicago Packers, Chicago Zepherys, Baltimore Bullets, Capital Bullets, Washington Bullets New Orleans Jazz, New York Nets,
- MLB
- Milwaukee Brewers (1901) Baltimore Orioles (1901-1902) New York Highlanders, Seattle Pilots, St Louis Browns, Both Washinton Senators, Philadelphia A's Kansas City A's Boston Braves, Milwaukee Braves, New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers. Have I missing any? Smith03 16:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Can I ask how many people who want two articles are not from Quebec or another part of Canada? It seems just by looking at people user pages that most of the supports of two pages are from CanadaSmith03 16:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm from the USA. I put the Canadian flags in my post for solidarity. Canadians are cool. Let me point out that the Expos fans are the experts on this issue. If they say that there should be a seperate page, then there should be a seperate page. (What is that, 4 reasons to keep the pages seperate now? Some people just won't be convinced no matter how much evidence there is.) Stop wasting your time trying to merge this page, a merge that is clearly both inappropriate and unwanted, and go improve something. - Pioneer-12 18:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please take note at how Canadian fans have treated the move of the Grizzlies to Memphis Grizzlies. They have kept true to the redirect idea supported by all MLB, NFL and NBA articles. Kingturtle 19:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The redirect idea was a bad idea to begin with, for all the reasons said by the many contributors to this page. It's time to follow the path of reason and justice and let go of our errant, confused ways of the past. Let us not be biased by old prejudices. This article, and this vote, will be the first step towards setting things right. Viva la Revolution! - Pioneer-12 20:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't confuse democracy with justice. Kingturtle 20:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The redirect idea was a bad idea to begin with, for all the reasons said by the many contributors to this page. It's time to follow the path of reason and justice and let go of our errant, confused ways of the past. Let us not be biased by old prejudices. This article, and this vote, will be the first step towards setting things right. Viva la Revolution! - Pioneer-12 20:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please take note at how Canadian fans have treated the move of the Grizzlies to Memphis Grizzlies. They have kept true to the redirect idea supported by all MLB, NFL and NBA articles. Kingturtle 19:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm from the USA. I put the Canadian flags in my post for solidarity. Canadians are cool. Let me point out that the Expos fans are the experts on this issue. If they say that there should be a seperate page, then there should be a seperate page. (What is that, 4 reasons to keep the pages seperate now? Some people just won't be convinced no matter how much evidence there is.) Stop wasting your time trying to merge this page, a merge that is clearly both inappropriate and unwanted, and go improve something. - Pioneer-12 18:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Definite keep. Nice list above but the article is hear to stay. --LeoTheLion 16:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: please refer to New Orleans Hornets to see how the Charlotte Hornetsare dealt with there. Kingturtle 16:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The Nats had spring training this year in the same facilities that the Expos had them, Space Coast Stadium, Melbourne, Florida. Kingturtle 16:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As for hockey I am looking at page 101 of the NHL official record book 2005 an it refers to Phoenix Coyotes franchise date as June 22 1979, than transferred to phx July 1 1996. So even the NHL list teams that have relocated by their orginial dateSmith03 17:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Except the Winnipeg Jets had an existence as a WHA team before they joined the NHL. The conceptual link and sense of continuity between the WHA Jets and the NHL Jets is much stronger than the link between the Jets and the Coyotes. Same with Quebec Nordiques. -- Curps 17:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Don't forget the Hartford Whalers. Same issue. --Madchester 17:40, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
my point is that the NHL doese not consider the coyotes and jets two different teams if it helps they include the Minnesota North Stars with the Dallas StarsSmith03 20:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. It should redirect as all of the other franchise moves do. The fact is, the Expos are NOT a defunct franchise. I think people are getting confused as to what defunct means. Example: The Milwaukee Braves are not defunct. All of their records and everything else transferred to Atlanta along with the team. Folding a team makes it defunct...not moving it. This is a long standing principle. I mean my favorite baseball team, the Milwaukee Brewers, spent one year in Seattle as the Pilots before moving to Milwaukee and yet all of the Pilots records are considered Brewers records. It's the same team. NOT defunct. --Woohookitty 18:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. Major League Baseball and the National League regard these as the same franchise, just as they regard the St. Louis Browns and Baltimore Orioles as the same franchise. Officially, the Expos' records now belong to the Nationals. Keep in mind that Hank Aaron is recognized as the Atlanta Braves' career leader in home runs, even though he hit most of them in Milwaukee. I would support an offshoot article on the franchise's years in Montreal, though it shouldn't simply be under the title Montreal Expos; perhaps titled History of the Montreal Expos? Suggest moving the existing article to some such title, and then revising the redirects from this current pair to the Nationals rather than the new article. MisfitToys 20:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect in accordance with other "moved franchise" team articles, although it looks like the debate is pretty well tilted the other way. Ellsworth 21:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. I think consistency is the most important thing. God knows Wikipedia is not internally consistent, but it is a goal that should be strived for. Given the precedent for other teams which have moved, I think that redirection is a no-brainer. Of course, the case could be made that there exists a precedent for keeping the pages of Canadian teams which are stolen by, er, moved to the US (e.g. Winnipeg Jets and my beloved Québec Nordiques). However, the Vancouver Grizzlies are redirected, so it appears that keeping separate pages applies to NHL teams alone. So be it. Keeping the page thus violates consistency. Now, if someone wants to incite a revolution, starting separate pages for all the moved teams, then sign me up. That's not what we're talking about here, however. And I say this as someone who will never, as long as I live, recognize the validity of the Washington Nationals. -- GreenLocust 21:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
can we get a list of thoses who support keeping two pages who are not upset Expo fans. Just because more people support keeping two pages does not necessary make that the right choice for wikipedia. Is someway we can have neutral people ie people who are not baseball fans make decesion not only for the expos/nats but so we have a general rule that we use all the time when franchise relocate.Smith03 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone who is part of the Wikipedia community should have an equal say on this issue, regardless of their background. You're just opening another can of worms by creating separate polls for "Expos fans" and "non-Expos fans"; what's to say that those results won't be skewed? --Madchester 21:06, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm pretty much agnostic as to the redirect/keep brouhaha; I see both sides as having valid points. However, I had a thought of my own. What about a "History of baseball in Montréal" article? This article could incorporate both the Expos and the Montreal Royals, the city's former minor-league team. The Nationals article could have a link to the new Montréal baseball history article for those who have a specific interest in Expos history. Dale Arnett 22:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect conditionally. Both sides have valid points, but we should be consistent. I think a good policy is redirect for name changes without a location change (Los Angeles/California/Anaheim angels) and city changes without name changes (Brooklyn/LA Dodgers). However, it may be acceptable to have distinct articles for teams which change both cities and names. Until Seattle Pilots, Washington Senators, St. Louis Browns, etc. have their own article, we should be consistent. However, I'd be in favor of NOT doing this, and using REDIRECTS in all three "franchise change" possibilities. --Locarno 22:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I like this idea. Though I vote for redirect, for the sake of consistency, emotionally I'm with the keepers on this one. It just makes me sad to think that typing in "Montreal Expos" will lead me to the page of the Washington Nationals abomination. Clearly, there a lot of people who feel similarly, and I think this idea is a good compromise between the two camps. Creating a new page for every name change (without a move) would be silly, but I support a separate page for a team identity which no longer exists. If it's done for the Expos, however, it should be done for the rest - all or none. If it can be done for the NHL, why not for MLB? -- GreenLocust 23:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The Expos should have a separate article. Though they are the same franchise, for all purpose the Expos and Nationals are pretty much separate entities. I support this in the case of most such franchise moves — see Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes... the Whalers have arguable enough history and encyclopaedic data to merit an article of its own. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I was asked to come in here and give my opinion and after reading the above arguments, here it is. If they hadn't changed fan-base, I would certainly vote to redirect (like LAA moving from Anaheim to Los Angeles market (even though not really, what a joke that is) or SD moving to Petco or MIL moving to the NL). I would like to see separate articles for NY Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, Boston Braves, etc unless there isn't much info to put in them in which case they should be footnotes in SF, LAD, and ATL. I think there is enough substance in this case to warrant MON having its own article. I know this is not how the other article are currently done, but this is how I think they should be done. The reason my vote is weak is because I think all the stats/feats/retired numbers/etc should be on the Nats page even though they happened in Montreal, but I'm a little confused on that part. The Expos page should only contain a historical account of the era and it certainly should not have that snazzy franchise box. →Vik Reykja 23:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. Ok they've moved to a new town and changed their name, but it's still the same franchise. To use an example from another sport Wimbledon F.C. redirects to Milton Keynes Dons F.C., both moves happened at a similar time, and both were controversial. Brooklyn Dodgers don't have their own article, so why should the Expos? Rje 00:23, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I guess if we didn't have any articles for Japanese scientists, but only a list, then we could never create an article for a Japanese scientist, because "the other ones don't have it". - Pioneer-12 09:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That is not the same thing. Wimbledon F.C. used to have an article. After their move, which was arguably more controversial than that of the Expos, this became a redirect to MK Dons. As for the Dodgers: their franchise still exists, and so does the Expos. Rje 15:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I guess if we didn't have any articles for Japanese scientists, but only a list, then we could never create an article for a Japanese scientist, because "the other ones don't have it". - Pioneer-12 09:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect - I am somewhat ignorant of baseball, but it seems to me that the article should be merged into the current team with a clear mention of what happened (they are still the same team, from what I've been told!). All the current info should be merged into the Washington Nationals article. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - if we have articles for minor league teams, we can have articles for major league franchises that have moved. Think of it as history part 1 and history part 2. dml 01:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect - if the Expos, poorly followed for the most part for much of the post Parc Jarry era in Montreal deserve a page, then certainly the beloved-by-millions Brooklyn Dodgers do, and our logic is that they do not. (However, a very close examination would seem to reveal that several relocated Arena football and old Amercian Basketball Association franchises have multiple pages, so we're not totally consistent here.) Rlquall 03:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The ABA was troubled with franchises that went belly up. A defunct franchise is different than a franchise that moves. I am happy to look into any pages you want me to. Kingturtle 03:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Brooklyn Dodgers do deserve a page....
- Redirect eventually - The main concern seems to be that 99% of the Nationals' franchise history is as the Montreal Expos. A decade or two from now, when things are more balanced and the "Expos" are unknown to a new generation of baseball fans, the Expos history should be folded into the Nationals history, since it IS the Nationals history. If Wikipedia had been founded in 1957, we'd be hearing a chorus of arguments in favor of keeping team articles at New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers rather than their new California locations. Those arguments would have had some weight then. Now, fifty years later, they make more sense as part of the franchise history incorporated into the article with the franchise's current name. I think it should be redirected now, but people's sentimental feelings seem to be prohibiting that. --Minesweeper 06:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Different team, different fan base, different owners, different history. --Bastique 13:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Different fan base, yes; but same team, same owners, same history. I think this has been established in all the other comments. --Locarno 18:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. Let's be consistent with the other Major League Baseball teams. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. AFWIW, I think the Brooklyn Dodgers should be separate article. jengod 19:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The Nats are not the same as the Expos, really. Iceberg3k 19:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I would like to see an overall franchise page for every team and for franchises that have relocated, separate pages that contain the discrete histories of the team in each locale. I know this runs counter to the current precedent, but I think it better reflects the way fans think of their teams' histories without compromising the perspective of the owners and leagues. I think it should be done across all franchises in all sports. Veronique 22:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect - Duh. —User:Mulad (talk) 23:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect - stay consistant. 70.49.26.37 19:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and begin making separate pages for other teams that have moved. - SimonP 19:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I am wondering: should we also create separate articles for cities that have changed names, such as Saigon (redirects to Ho Chi Minh City) and Leningrad (redirects to Sain Petersburg)? Consistency would seem to dictate that we should.--Canoeguy81 21:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If you picked up the city and moved it a hundred miles or more, then yes. On the other hand, if you moved the whole city along with the team, then there would likely be no need for separate articles on the relocated team.
- If you are wondering how it is possible to move an entire city, then a bit of research is in order. You see, according to popular mythology, it has already happened to the city of Boston.
- - Pioneer-12 22:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No one, as far as I know, is suggesting creating separate articles for teams that have simply changed names but not moved (e.g. Anaheim Angels). Canoeguy81, your analogy is flawed. -- GreenLocust 01:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - precedent can and should be overturned when the situation warrants. The Expos are one of the first teams to move since the inception of wikipedia, and hence have a good article, unlike the dodgers and others. Many more people have an interest in it than in those older teams, hence the article. I guarantee that if wikipedia had been around 50 years ago those others would have articles as well. Peregrine981 12:13, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Redirect - It's the same franchise, the same team, the same owners, the same history. The Montreal Expos still exist, but now they're called the Washington Nationals. To not redirect is to steal the Nats history. Varitek 15:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: "the same owners" ? Please note that the Nats don't really have an owner yet. AFAIK, MLB bought out the last owners of the Expos (a local consortium) a few years back for a relocation. So, MLB is just a "caretaker" owner while a new owner is being recruited. -- PFHLai 16:22, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Yes but the "owners" of the Expos in 04 are the same as the "owners" of Nats in 05. I was thinking the Expos played some of their games in SAn Juan the last 2 years, so they had a different fan base for those games, Should we also do an article like Montreal Expos of San Juan? Smith03 18:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep
I think that it is too soon to be making this decision.
Right now the Nationals are claiming the history of the Expos, just as the Minnesota Twins claim the history of the first incarnation of the Washington Senators and the Texas Rangers claim the history of the second incarnation of the Washington Senators. But now that Washington has a team, you see people like Frank Howard, who played for the Senators, participating in Nationals events. I think that eventually, the fans in Washington, DC, will want the Senators history, and since the Twins and the Rangers are not really doing anything with the Senators history, I think that having a real, live baseball team in DC will eventually lead to the Washington franchise getting back the Senators' history, in a way that is different from franchises that existed for one year or in the 19th century. The DC fans undoubtedly care more about the Senators than about the Expos and I think the Expos history will eventually end up like Youppi!, the Expos mascot, the rights to which has been bought by a Canadian company. Let what was done in Montreal stay in Montreal, and what was done in Washington, DC, stay in Washington, DC. - --Mretalli 00:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - just to give you an idea of how the major MLB sites are dealing with this issue:
- MLB has left the Montreal Expos page blank - and all official Expos info is now housed by the MLB at the Washington Nationals page.
- http://www.montrealexpos.com/ forwards to the Washington Nationals Official page
- Baseball-reference has put all Expos info under the Nationals page
- Baseball-almanac now houses all Expos history on their Washington Nationals page - and Baseball-almanac created an automatic foward from http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/expo.shtml to http://baseball-almanac.com/teams/washington_nationals.shtml
- CBS Sportsline forwards their Expos page to their Washington Nationals page
- ESPN's old Expos URL says "404 - FILE NOT FOUND", and all Expos related info is on ESPN's Washington page
- Fox Sports has no team page for the Expos, and all Expos related info is on their Washington page
- Yahoo's old Expos URL forwards to their Nationals URL
- Canada.com's page on the Expos forwards to Canada.com's page on the Nationals; an old Canada.com URL for the Expos now just says "Error: Block Not Found"
- USA Today, strangely enough, still has an Expos page and another Expos page, but they list the 2005 Washington Nationals' results and schedule - data which is the same as the Nationals page
More to come, Kingturtle 00:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep
This is the first time a MLB franchise has moved in over thirty years. In this age of the Internet, MLB can change the Expos records to the Nationals by changing one field and have it affect every field on the MLB.com site. The same is true of the other sites you mention. Shades of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 - --Mretalli 21:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- What are you talking about Orwell here for? It has always been standard practice for MLB franchises to take with them their records and contracts. Is it Orwellian that the Nationals had spring training in the same facilities that the Expos did? Is it Orwellian that the Nationals use the same minor league affiliates that the Expos did? Is it Orwellian that the Baltimore Orioles' story involves the St. Louis Browns? I don't get this Orwell reference one bit. Kingturtle 22:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep
Wikipedia hasonly been around a short time. Certainly not long enough for fans of other franchises that have left cities to have encountered the problem. Montreal fans have the right to keep their own article about the history of their team. The Expos present a unique case in the history of pro baseball. The team was essentially ownerless, being owned by the league. The whole character of a franchise is altered by the change in its ownership. Exshpos-- 00:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, what you say is inaccurate. Wikipedia has been around long enough for fans from other franchises to encounter this situation. They chose to create a redirect and put the franchise history in the new article (see Charlotte Hornets and Vancouver Grizzlies). Kingturtle 01:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: tonight on ESPN, John Miller and Joe Morgan mentioned that John Patterson (of the Nationals) had the lowest ERA through his first 4 starts (0.98) in team history since Pedro Martinez in 1997 (when Martinez had a 0.31 ERA in his first 4 starts). Kingturtle 01:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep
To say there is enough content to support two pages is an understatement. The Montreal Expos existed as a successful Major League Baseball franchise for 36 seasons. The 2005 Washington Nationals are both a new team and a very very old team. Many people forget that the first incarnation of the Washington Senators, the team that eventually moved to Minnesota, was originally called the Washington Nationals. The Washington Nationals won the 1924 World Series. The name has also been traced as far back as the Civil War when the Washington Nationals baseball club was defeated by a team from the 71st New York Regiment in a game played on the Ellipse in Washington, DC on July 2, 1861. To categorize the 2005 Washington Nationals as a mere extension of the Montreal Expos is to deny both cities their unique places in the history of Baseball. Rubennyc 01:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- The Washington Nationals in this incarnation are the same team as the Expos. Therefore, this is this Washington Nationals' 37th season. The other Washington teams were different franchises. They have nothing to do with this Washington Nationals. Kingturtle 01:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- "this is this Washington Nationals' 37th season" -- What a charming and bizarre fiction. Two years ago, there was no such thing as the Washington nationals, and now they are in their 37th season. MLB may decide that, for its own record-keeping purposes, it is going to create fictions like this, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to parallel that. Professional sports teams exist because of fans. No fans - no money - no team. The Expos fans (and I am not one) are, for the most part, not the Nats' fans. )That was the problem - there weren't enough of them. If that continues in Washington, then the team will soon enough become the San Jose Chili Fingers or something like that. In the minds of most people, the two teams are separate entities. there is no harm then in having two articles that are linked to each other and that indicate the connection (including MLB's view of the situation) between the two teams. Wikipedia need not follow the dictates of MLB. Ground Zero 22:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- You don't understand. It is the same franchise. For example, the Yankees are in their 105th year - even though the first two years were played in BALTIMORE! The Twins are in their 105th year, even though the first 60 years were played in WASHINGTON! The Nats and the Expos are the same franchise - the same contracts - the same payrolls - the same records - the same retired numbers - the same minor league affiliates - the same spring training facility - the same retired numbers. And this is not some unique situation designed just for the Nat/Expos. The exact same carry over has happened dozens of times in MLB, starting over 100 years ago. Kingturtle 22:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- "You don't understand." Just becaue I don't agree with you, that doesn't mean I don't understand.
- Different city, different country, different name, different fans, different mascot, different stadium, different ethno-linguistic cultural context.... Bet you won't be able to get poutine at the Nats' games. Or hear announcements dans les deux langues officielles. Ground Zero 22:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- You don't understand. It is the same franchise. For example, the Yankees are in their 105th year - even though the first two years were played in BALTIMORE! The Twins are in their 105th year, even though the first 60 years were played in WASHINGTON! The Nats and the Expos are the same franchise - the same contracts - the same payrolls - the same records - the same retired numbers - the same minor league affiliates - the same spring training facility - the same retired numbers. And this is not some unique situation designed just for the Nat/Expos. The exact same carry over has happened dozens of times in MLB, starting over 100 years ago. Kingturtle 22:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- "this is this Washington Nationals' 37th season" -- What a charming and bizarre fiction. Two years ago, there was no such thing as the Washington nationals, and now they are in their 37th season. MLB may decide that, for its own record-keeping purposes, it is going to create fictions like this, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to parallel that. Professional sports teams exist because of fans. No fans - no money - no team. The Expos fans (and I am not one) are, for the most part, not the Nats' fans. )That was the problem - there weren't enough of them. If that continues in Washington, then the team will soon enough become the San Jose Chili Fingers or something like that. In the minds of most people, the two teams are separate entities. there is no harm then in having two articles that are linked to each other and that indicate the connection (including MLB's view of the situation) between the two teams. Wikipedia need not follow the dictates of MLB. Ground Zero 22:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- The Washington Nationals in this incarnation are the same team as the Expos. Therefore, this is this Washington Nationals' 37th season. The other Washington teams were different franchises. They have nothing to do with this Washington Nationals. Kingturtle 01:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- As long as we're still voting, Keep. Yes, there is continuity, but when a team changes names and switches cities, the identity becomes significantly different enough to merit separate articles. The fans and team good will do not carry over to any great extent, and it isn't like this happens in MLB often enough that keeping separate articles becomes problematic. Obviously the Expos article will conclude by saying that the team became the Nationals, and the Nationals team will begin by saying the team was formerly the Expos, and I don't see why that's a problem. Furthermore, each article certainly has substantial independent content. Postdlf 03:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Here's the rub....all Montreal Expos history is Washington Nationals history. Kingturtle 03:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- And all Thirteen Colonies history is United States history. What's your point? Postdlf 22:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Here's the rub....all Montreal Expos history is Washington Nationals history. Kingturtle 03:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Resources concerned primarily by statistics have absolutely no reason to maintain an Expos page. The teams in Washington and Montréal are continuous. However, Wikipedia should be much more than a sports almanac listing team records. It should be a record of the culture of the organisation far beyond the simple legalistic definition of the organisation. Within a couple of years the Washington Nationals will have nothing to do with the Montréal Expos beyond the dusty old record books. I doubt if many Montréal fans will follow Washington particularly avidly. Nor will Washington fans look back fondly on the days in Montréal. In a strict sense their histories are the same, but in a human sense they are completely and totally different.
One example of this, the old Ottawa Senators of the early 20th century, including their records and Stanely Cups, are claimed by the modern franchise (at least they hang their banners) even though, in a legal sense, the two organisations have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. However, in a human way they do. Peregrine981 14:30, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I mentioned on the Colorado Avalanche page on how the Quebec and Colorado incarnations of the team are the same franchise, but they share divergent histories. The Nordiques had an intense rivalry with the Canadiens in the 80's and 90's but that never carried over to the Avs. Likewise, the Avs and Wings had all those (literally) bloody playoff series, but that has nothing to do with the Nordiques whatsoever. --Madchester 17:49, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP FOR 50 YEARS. Then, maybe.
Spare me the personal attacks and one line throaway quips which are meaningless in this encyclopedia context. If you have a strong essay stating your position that would be welcome and in line with the policies of Wikipedia. If you cannot do so, please skip. Don't bother chopping up my essay into parsed segments and then twisting the meaning into your favor. This is not the John Stewart Show. Thank you.
Dear Wikipedians,
I have lived in both the Western U.S., Montreal and the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. I have worked for the Senate in the legal arena in D.C. I am privileged to have a unique view of this subject. More importantly, I would like too see Wikipedia become an encyclopedia of record.
The very nature of an encyclopedia is at issue here, in my humble opinion. I grew up a big fan of encyclopedia of various kinds.
1. The socio-economic-cultural reasons of each sports franchises are separate and distinct. Here, we have the 1st major professional international franchise in another language and culture. The city was so unique that Branch Rickey decided to send Jackie Robinson to Montreal in 1947 to break the colour barrier.
Why? Bucky Rogers, Hall of Famer from the legendary Negro League, Kansas City Monarchs, said of the French city "it was cosmopolitan. He couldn't play in Alabama." To this day, Mrs. Robinson recalls the kindness of her white French neighbours, who were concerned over her pregancy. You can find transcripts of this.
2. Moreover, the rise and fall of the Expos have nothing to with the rise and falls of the Washington Senators either emotionally nor factually nor the Nationals in the future. D.C. has its own rich history of baseball. Montreal's date back to 1910 in minor league professional circles. Former Prime Minister Trudeau's father owned such a team.
3. This entry however plays pivotal role in the history of Major League Baseball during the turn of 21th century. The historical judgment of this commissioner has yet to be settled and judged well into the next 50 years. Think of the 1919 Black Sox and the creation of a new commissioner. Commissioner Selig's legacy is rife with contraversies from the 1994 stike, to the contraction of the small market teams, to a Congressionally "mandated" or "pressured" steroid policy which threatens to make home-run records statistically meaningless. The sports has fallen from America's pastime to maybe third pastime behind the NFL and maybe the NBA. The Expos is also part of his legacy, like it or not.
MLB wants to sell this franchise's assets. The Expos are now legally dissolved as a company or inactive. MLB's future sale of the Nationals to an owner and his deal with Peter Angelos are also part of that history. However, they are separate from its Montreal existence. Any redirection into Washington would curtail and snuff out any historical analysis of Selig's actions and his job as commissioner. This would make Wikipedia less useful for such an historical examination. It would, however, be very useful in finding a buyer with deep pockets. In other words the very nature of an encyclopedia would be in part sacrificed at the altar of greed and profit completely unrelated to Wikipedia.Italic text
For example, a month ago, I added a section about the 2003 "conflict of interests" between the Expos and its 29 owners. Did they really want the franchise to win the Wild Card over one of the non-MLB owned teams ? Now just a few days ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer had an article over the 2003 lack of September call-ups. MLB and the owners did not allow the calling up on minor leagues in its wild card race. This legacy is still being questioned. I like to think if a writer were to just glance at the Wikipedia, a writer would be inspired to examine an issue or two. Did the writer do so? We may never know. But the resource would be there for anyone either new or experienced in any field of endeavor without prejudice. The Vietnam War,ended in 1973, and is still being discussed and argued even as the sub rosa issue of the 2003 U.S. election ( recall "Swift Boat", CBS' and Bush 's war record in Vietnam).
4. MLB's position is clear. They have erased and expunged most if not all references to the Montreal franchise. If you go to RFK, there will be no Expos logos. The announcer, Elliott Price, who had some 14 years of experience and knowledge of the Expos was let go, the mascot replaced and the logo shelved. The staff replaced by and large. And news reports say the former Expos players, bless their souls, "have moved on".
A real encylopedia should remain free and independant and not react instinctively to short-term commercial or emotional interests. In this same vein, the Nationals should have a separate entry into the creation of its team and the successes and problems with such an association. Any such infringement of such analyses would also short-change that team. There should be entries on the Mayor's role, the burgeoning middle class and suburbs and the dissenting voices from the urban core. The tv deal etc...(BTW, I also enjoyed the time I lived in DC.) Information is power. That is the function of a real encyclopedia. The lack of information is control by those who have the means of creation, production and distribution. The very nature of the encylopedia is at stake here in my opinion. I don’t think dissenting Wikidpedians really has this in mind but the results are the same. There are whole governments and societies that run away from their pasts. Japan is running away from its World War II atrocities. While China is running away and commiting genocide of its minorities. In fact, North America wishes to forget the decimation of its aborinals. Wikipedia should not fall under this same historical amnesia. I'm not saying that MLB is a corrupt government but it is a private, self-interested, multi-billionaire dollar company or if you wish a "corporate welfare collector". And it is rife with inequities between small teams and big teams. Nevertheless, Wikipedia's independance from those market forces, MLB's "leadership" and its Commissioner Selig's plans or any other influences is crucial.Keeping this entry and mentioning the Nationals in this concluson is one important step towards that scholastic neutrality.
Thank you for this forum and your time, mods of the Wikipedia and fellow Wikipedians.
- Then create an article called History of baseball in Montréal. Montréal Expos should redirect to Washington Nationals.
Kingturtle 05:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. The FRANCHISE remains the same. All history about the FRANCHISE should now be placed under the new name of the FRANCHISE, Washington Nationals. Wikipedia does not still have an article under Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; it was moved to and now redirects to Pope Benedict XVI. his name has changed - his location has changed - but he's the same person - any parts of his history are now under the new name. Travelers Group redirects to Citigroup; WorldCom redirects to MCI; Bell Atlantic redirects to Verizon Communications; GTE redirects to Verizon Communications. Every single MLB franchise follows these rules. I am not convinced by one iota that the Expos deserve an exception. Kingturtle 06:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
| ***The scoreboard*** | |
|---|---|
Keep
|
Redirect
|
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so the article will be kept as a default. Postdlf 01:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Clover Park High School[edit]
Non-notable high school. Delete. Firebug 18:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable, POV article. --InShaneee 18:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, coverage of troubled schools is exactly what wikipedia should be providing. Kappa 18:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Why? Gamaliel 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Problems like gangs, sexual harrasment and gun violence in schools are part of the "sum of all human knowledge" we are trying to accumulate. Kappa 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- And that calls for substantial articles about gangs, sexual harrasment and gun violence, not articles on random schools which merely mention such things in passing. Gamaliel 22:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The school article ties these problems to a geographic location where they are extant. Klonimus 00:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Suppose it was a substantial school article which described its problems and attempted solutions in depth? Kappa 23:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Are you asking if I would vote keep? If the article was truly substantial, with verifiable information and sources cited, then that would certainly be a strong factor in its favor. Gamaliel 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- And that calls for substantial articles about gangs, sexual harrasment and gun violence, not articles on random schools which merely mention such things in passing. Gamaliel 22:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Problems like gangs, sexual harrasment and gun violence in schools are part of the "sum of all human knowledge" we are trying to accumulate. Kappa 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying that troubled schools are somehow more encyclopedic than non-troubled schools? RickK 20:09, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, covering them is more important. Kappa 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Wikpedia is not here for the purposes of advocacy. Your comment is tantamount to saying that we should be covering bands with no record contracts more than bands with record contracts. RickK 21:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd think of it as covering villages with serious problems more than average villages. Kappa 22:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Wikpedia is not here for the purposes of advocacy. Your comment is tantamount to saying that we should be covering bands with no record contracts more than bands with record contracts. RickK 21:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, covering them is more important. Kappa 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Why? Gamaliel 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with the Lakewood, Washington article. After all, how many children at the school don't live there? Average Earthman 19:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:BEEFSTEW of 2 (A,B). Not to mention the improper trolling for votes. —Korath (Talk) 19:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and continue to expand. High schools should not have to prove notability. It seems somewhat elitist when the richy-rich Stuyvesant High Schools out there get to have articles, but your regular middle-class high school isn't considered good enough. It is a public institution and more notable than the British train stations. (And I didn't get this by reading GRider's page, I monitor the VfDs; but is someone's opinion who gets it from there less valid than ours? How about the person who hears about it from WP:W?) --BaronLarf 20:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Once again, someone confuses Wikipedia with the Special Olympics, where every article is special and it's "elitist" to draw distinctions about worthiness and quality. Standards?!? Who needs them? --Calton | Talk 01:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If we set standards only by school quality, we end up with the top 2% and the occasional scene of a shooting incident. How does that represent the real range of schools to the user? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It is not supposed to. Representing the typical is the job of general articles. An article on American High Schools could contain such information, or an article on American eduction could. Furthermore, unremarkable schools could be mentioned on a town page or even perhaps a school district page. It is just plain silly to claim that not having an article on every single school in the world would mean that no information on typical schools could exist on wikipedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to highlight and synthesize. Indrian 19:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- An article on American High Schools would be too generic unless it included specific examples. I'm not saying we need articles on every single school in the world, but we do need scope for representative examples of all types. Kappa 06:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Would you extend this to other types of articles? How about articles on representative examples of people? I could write an article about my plumber. Gamaliel 06:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your plumber is unlikely to cross even a minimal bar of verifiability and significance to his/her local community or plumbing in general. Kappa 06:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In my opinion, a better parallel is the inclusion of every city, town, village and Census Designated Place on Wikipedia. There are far more of those than there are high schools, plus there is no debate about whether Bee Cave, Texas is notable. This, despite the fact that the city of Bee Cave has only 656 people, less than most high schools.--BaronLarf 18:07, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- If people are so obsessed with notability then just merge the damn high school page into the local town page. Towns are unquestionably notable, and high schools are unquestionably significant in terms of their local town. However, this page has so much information that it deserves it's own page as a "subpage" of the city of Lakewood. So after you merge it, you are gonna have to unmerge it. :-) In other words, just keep the page. Incidentally, I think I've just proven the inherent significance of any school page that is larger then a stub. - Pioneer-12 19:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Would you extend this to other types of articles? How about articles on representative examples of people? I could write an article about my plumber. Gamaliel 06:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- An article on American High Schools would be too generic unless it included specific examples. I'm not saying we need articles on every single school in the world, but we do need scope for representative examples of all types. Kappa 06:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It is not supposed to. Representing the typical is the job of general articles. An article on American High Schools could contain such information, or an article on American eduction could. Furthermore, unremarkable schools could be mentioned on a town page or even perhaps a school district page. It is just plain silly to claim that not having an article on every single school in the world would mean that no information on typical schools could exist on wikipedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to highlight and synthesize. Indrian 19:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- If we set standards only by school quality, we end up with the top 2% and the occasional scene of a shooting incident. How does that represent the real range of schools to the user? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Once again, someone confuses Wikipedia with the Special Olympics, where every article is special and it's "elitist" to draw distinctions about worthiness and quality. Standards?!? Who needs them? --Calton | Talk 01:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete High schools are not notable by simply being. Is Spring Valley High School notable? How can it be since it just opened. I have no problem with any school being included if it stands on its own as deserving an entry. This is not a class or rich vs. poor issue. If there is a question, tag it cleanup-importance and if nothing happens delete it. Vegaswikian 21:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing special.Saopaulo1 21:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- keep, this please it seems special to me Yuckfoo 21:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Invalid nomination. --Gene_poole 23:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Wait, let me guess: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ergo it is encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good to see the message is getting through.--Gene_poole 03:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Calton, you are starting to understand inclusionism, Klonimus 00:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, either the message that you're as thick as two short planks or that you have no shame about employing rhetorical fallacies. For details, see Beg the question.
- And speaking of two, where's your pal Centauri? Shouldn't he be here fighting the good fight? --Calton | Talk 11:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- By your own reasoning, your own vote would be invalid since it doesn't have a valid reasoning behind it. Yes, I realize the paradox there :)
- Wait, let me guess: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ergo it is encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete In accordance with Wikipedia's notability policies and Jimbo's wishes. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Do you think Jimbo wishes for good articles on "non-notable" schools to be deleted? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: non-notable high school. Jonathunder 01:18, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
- Keep in accordance with Jimbo's wishes. [8] This school does appear to be notable for reasons of campus violence, although notability is not a requirement for inclusion. —RaD Man (talk) 01:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My interpretation is that Jimbo is somewhat non-committal about stubs Kappa 11:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Jimbo was clearly talking about allowing exceptions, not about something becoming the rule, and the continual brandishing of his quote as if it meant the latter is straight-up intellectual dishonesty. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- ...or maybe not. "Non-notability" s not a valid deletion criteria. --Gene_poole 03:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If he was talking about making exceptions, what would he make exceptions for? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This is a stub about a perfectly average school with discipline problems. I wish we could say that were unusual. It's not. Delete. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What if it were more than a stub? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable topic. El_C 07:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Lakewood, Washington and delete - Skysmith 08:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per low BEEFSTEW score. Radiant_* 10:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: User:GRider's edits make a new WP:BEEFSTEW score of 4 (A, B, E, G (though barely - [9])). --bainer 13:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Notable discipline problems at a notable school. Klonimus 13:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. That article could describe any high school in the United States. That students and parents have expressed concerns is subjective on their part and unquantifiable on ours. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: What is not subjective but is notable is the fact that the school received a federal grant allowing "students who have been victimized or participated in violence to receive therapy" from counselors. What is quantifiable is that students and parents have these very real concerns and that the school district has addressed them. As a parent myself, I sincerely value such information and sleep better knowing that Wikipedia hosts it. —RaD Man (talk) 07:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing notable about this, which is yet another school. The JPS 00:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Schools are important. Oliver Chettle 02:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this school article deserves improvement. ALKIVAR™
09:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:57, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Another generic school. Unfortunately, being plagued by gang violence does not make a school notable as this is a common problem. Indrian 19:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. Houshuang
- Keep. GRider's improvements have made this well and truly worthy of retention. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Schools are worthy of note, and this is a well-written article. If I were looking up information on schools and discovered that Wikipedia contained an entry for a high school I attended some years ago, I would be extremely impressed with the depth of information and level of detail in Wikipedia. I would shout from the rooftops "WIKIPEDIA IS THE GREATEST ENCYCLOPEDIA EVER!" We are better off having this article. - Pioneer-12 12:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not notable CDC (talk) 23:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Master Thief Garrett 01:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, as per Pioneer12 and Capitalistroadster.--Jacobw 18:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is subjective. Wikipedia is not improved by the removal of school articles. ~leif ☺ (talk) 20:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It's a very nice article. Better than 90% of the stuff I get when I hit the random page button.--Heathcliff 02:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Topic is notable: data interesting (because having more than 50% minorities means well, the majority isn't really present, is it?) How do you expect it to grow out of non notability if you keep pressing to delete it? It has the capacity to grow out of non notability. Plus, I disagree with the notion that it is not distinguished from the countless other schools around the world, because you realise, that in China, the student mindset would be different, there is no reduced lunch, the syllabus would be different, or in Singapore, having much more different sets of characteristics than US schools, or even within the US itself. If I made an article about some relatively unknown species just discovered in the Amazon Rainforest, much of detail yet to be discovered, its report printed in a small section of some scientific journal among thousands of others, in the same family as another species, are you what, going to delete it for having non notable information? Even before the article has a chance to evolve?...
- Yet according to the Tree of Life project, Wikipedia doesn't mind documenting each and every species. Because notability can be established, can become notable research information, when networked, overviewed in conjunction with other articles, if you let it live. Its genome would be different, there would be lessons to learn, no matter how small, and then its important for say, genetic statistics, research, confirmation, checking for codon exceptions, etc. In the same way, schools are an important part of demographics, no matter how non notable it is now. Would you object to Wikipedia storing the genome (taken from DNA databases) of every species if it had people bothered? Isn't the record of such evolution of the individual nucleotides and its analyses valuable, even though it seems small? Should we omit a point from a circle in our mathematical drawings because its only one point out of an infinite number? Yet we don't. Why then object to having this article exist for demographical purposes? The NPOV problems can be fixed. It has a chance to be proliferate into something of note. Why do have articles every day of the year, even into the future, or documentation of every possible enzyme there is in life? Isn't it possible that a string of non notable things can be used in analysis into something of note? And isn't it true that the patterns can be so diverse they need their own individual articles? Isn't it possible, that gasp, something event might happen that links two relatively minor things into a big one? And if the article existed beforehand, it would have been easier to correlate when something did happen. One article about a seemingly insignificant thing, when linked and correlated with other articles to show similar concepts, or trends, patterns, for cross reference and such, then extending this depth to possibly many others because of the links? -- Natalinasmpf 02:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Amen. This article enhances the information value of every page that links to it, and every page that will link to it in the future. I think that: if a topic is a common link between two or more notable topics, then that topic becomes notable as a result of it's association with those topics, and that a page should probably exist for that mutually shared topic. Ergo, if two significant people go to a school, then that school becomes notable as a common link, a shared bond. - Pioneer-12 08:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So uh, conclusion? Anybody? -- Natalinasmpf 13:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable school with notable alumni. Tallyman 15:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blackamoor (slang)
Guess what guys. You are wrong. Melsondorph the Powerful most certainly exists. I am best friends with the guy in the group. They are hilarious.