Talk:Washington Nationals all-time roster

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Baseball Low‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expos all-time roster

Much like the Washington Senators roster is combined with the Minnesota Twins all-time roster (among countless other examples), the Expos all-time roster should be combined with the Nationals all-time roster. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Senators rosters -- both those combined with the Minnesota Twins all-time roster and the Texas Rangers all-time roster should be combined with the Nationals all-time roster. The Montreal Expos played in Montreal. The Senators played in Washington, and as the Nationals try to honor the memory of players like Walter Johnson and [Frank Howard], it's worthwhile to combine them into one. 69.143.186.133 (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expos all-time roster

When discussing all-time franchise rosters then it makes sense to combine any of the previouos team rosters that make up the history of that franchise. When discussing specific team rosters, say the Montreal Expos all-time roster, they should remain separate from their current team rosters, as well as any team records and retired numbers. The current Washington Nationals made this seperation when they chose to release the three jersey numbers (Gary Carter's 8, Andre Dawson and Rusty Staub's 10, Tim Raines' 30) retired by the Montreal Expos. Chrisgauvin (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. That's why there are the categories, Category:Montreal Expos players and Category:Washington Nationals players, just as there are now separate categories for even Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays players and Category:Tampa Bay Rays players. The reference to records and retired numbers are separate discussions from these franchise roster lists, which I think should combined here because it's the only "franchise" list that is not complete and is inconsistent with every other franchise all-time roster list. Wolfer68 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this train of thought. The only referrence that I would deam acceptable is the players that appeared in both the last season of "Nos Z'amours" (french nickname for the Expos) and the first season of the washington nationals. No other linkage as for the purpose that they disgraced the hard work of the players whos' numbers got retired by the 'Spos for all of their hard work while wearing the Montreal Expos uniform. 207.47.230.237 (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)plashfire[reply]

Franchise or Team?

What must be determined is whether these all-time rosters represent TEAMS or FRANCHISES. If they represent TEAMS, then a lot of existing team roster pages (at the very least the Orioles, Yankees, Brewers, Twins and Rangers, and possibly the A's, Braves, Dodgers and Giants as well) will all have to be split into component teams.

There are also separate categories for all the different name changes various teams have gone through -- do we separate the rosters of the "Cincinnati Red Stockings" from the "Cincinnati Redlegs" from the "Cincinnati Reds" as well? How about the "Philadelphia Phillies" from the "Philadelphia Blue Jays" and "Philadelphia Quakers"?

There were also more than two past teams named the Senators: There were also the Washington Senators (1891-1899). Should they be merged here as well? Also, there have been several teams named the Baltimore Orioles -- do they all get merged into the current Orioles team, and the Browns taken away? What about the original New York Metropolitans?

I believe these should be franchise rosters, not just rosters for particular incarnations of teams, and therefore believe the Expos roster should be merged into this one. Dewelar (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been discussed multiple times and the consensus has been either not to merge or no consensus. If you want to create a franchise history page, then go ahead but do not marge the expos with this page unless there another disscussion and I have a feeling that a lot of people don't want to have another one. They both deserve to have different pages. --Patrick (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they deserve separate pages, then so do the St. Louis Browns, all three incarnations of the Washington Senators, the original Milwaukee Brewers (who moved to St. Louis in 1902), the Baltimore Orioles who moved to New York in 1903 and became the Highlanders and later the Yankees, the Seattle Pilots, and on and on and on...when is work starting on those, then? --Dewelar (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever consensus can be reached on those article. Agreement on merging the expos and nationals have not been reached. If you want to start a discussion of splitting those articles, you have my vote --Patrick (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, consensus on an article-by-article level should only come after some kind of global discussion on the topic of whether sport franchises should be split or not, then if someone thinks an article should be handled differently from the standard, they should present their case. I'm only arguing that the Expos should be merged with the Nationals because the standard is to merge, and I don't see that sufficient evidence has been presented for a deviation in this one single case. We should be aiming for consistency on this. -- Dewelar (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument has been to keep the Expos info separate from Washington Nationals info to preserve that team's history and so forth. So be it. I haven't heard any argument against having a combined franchise page, or any argument as to why a page should exist for just the Washington Nationals. This article/page would be ideally suited for the all-time franchise roster for Expos/Nationals, and then keep the all-time Expos roster as a separate entity since that will never need to be updated with new players. I am in favor of maintaining consistency and have a single all-time franchise roster page for all current 30 MLB teams. As it stands, it's this way for 29 of them. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]