Talk:Los Angeles Chargers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Missing stuff

Where is the banner with the franchise information that is on every other NFL team page. It used to be there and now it is gone. Why? Seantpainter (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This article also skips over the entire 2007 season, which was very relevant. It's only a matter of time before someone complained about this, so here it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisin212k (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

shouldn't we mention the fact that the chargers are considering moving to San Antonio in 2008? Borisblue 23:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Do you have reliable sources to cite to back that up? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This for one San Antonio Chargers?Borisblue 02:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats just a rumor, also rumors of them mvoing to Los Angeles and other cities in San diego county.

History of the name?

"Hilton was in charge of the hotel chain’s blossoming credit card business — hence the name “the Chargers” — and Gillman ran the entire football operation" http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/billsnfl/story/506430.html 29 Nov. 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.45.100 (talk)

What is meant by "Chargers?" Are they wild charging horses? 153.104.16.114 02:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are.

Well, not sure that is correct. The original team owner Barron Hilton was seeking to promote "charging" on his credit card company's product, the Carte Blanche credit card, according to many accounts.

Any sources for this information? It should go on the article page if it can be verified. --Trjonescp 03:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Chargers.com the name was the result of a "name the team" contest. http://www.chargers.com/history/chronology/ The early logo involved a horse and a lightning bolt. The horse is now dropped but the bolt remain. The connection of name to credit card seems to be after the fact. Leftus 05:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it meant as an electrical charge, or something like that..

I slept on bedsheets with the horse and bolt helmet logo. The Charger is a horse. --22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Kstanzick

I have seen black and white footage of a game in Balboa Stadiium where there was a knight on a white "charger."

The credit card interpretation is apropos now, given the state of the city's finances and the huge amount of sub-prime debt that fueled the recent real-estate bubble there. :)--Joel 23:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The team was named "Chargers" in reference to a general term for a war horse. Hence, the horse on the old 1960's shield logo. The original mascot was a medieval war horse (or a knight on a horse). The original mascot lost its meaning somehow, and the nickname/mascot morphed into the bolt-like personality we see today.71.10.230.146 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That warhorse mascot has to have a citable source floating around. I remember seeing clippings of the charger warhorse in really old San Diego Union Papers, in reference to the team name. It actually might have been an old (60's) LA paper now that I think of it.68.116.166.71 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

2006 season

Discussion moved to Talk:2006 San Diego Chargers season. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nickname: Barron Hilton agreed after his general manager, Frank Ready picked the Chargers name when he purchased an AFL franchise for Los Angeles. “I liked it because they were yelling ‘charge’ and sounding the bugle at Dodgers Stadium and at USC games.”

Norv reference needs to be removed

Line "Despite an abrupt ending to their turnaround season, Head Coach Marty Schottenheimer was named NFL Coach Of The Year norv turner is a flying panzee and also is a traitor for the 2004-2005 season, and quarterback Drew Brees was named NFL Comeback Player of the Year." needs to be edited to remove the Norv Turner reference. I dont like the guy, but no place on wiki. Also, why is the site Protect with no notice that it is, and no one updating the off season information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zsiddique (talk • contribs) 09:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Protection

Why is this page still locked?

it not anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.78.38 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

A few comments as I copyedit this article:

• Reference format needs to be fixed. I have removed incorrect references for now, but will work to get them back in correctly.
• Section headings have been edited for NPOV problems
• Instead of having a gallery, logos and uniforms should at least try to be incorporated text-side.
• Non-free use images have been removed. Pats1 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• 2006 and 2007 season sections should have a short blurb to go with the further information links.
• See WP:NOT#INFO. Lists of non-notable accomplishments or events (i.e. Alex Spanos donated $X, or the Chargers draft picks were as follows...) should be on any single season articles, but not the main article. The absence of these articles does not warrant the inclusion of this info on the main article.
• Extra and unnecessary spaces or on the flip-side, absence of spaces where they should be, is something that should be addressed before an edit is submitted to prevent the need to go back and remove/fix many of these spacing problems.
• See WP:NPOV. Statements like "Unfortunately, the Chargers lost..." are from a Charger or Chargers fan POV. All Wikipedia articles need to be from a neutral POV.
• Text should not be copied from other websites, even if there is a citation for this text.
• Wikilinks should only be made on the first instance of a person, team, season, etc. in an article.
• After a player's name is given (and Wikilinked) once, the player can be referred to be his last name for the remainder of the article.
• The references section should not be populated with unincluded links. All references should be made with <ref></ref> tags, and made in the proper format (see WP:CITE for further assistance). Pats1 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• The history section needs a major overhaul, and should be modeled after featured articles like Chicago Bears and New England Patriots. That means you should all follow Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, and all of the relevant guidelines. Detailed content should be spun off into seperate articles. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One point I would like to make is that this is a work in progress and hopefully additional articles will be spun off but patience is key lets try and respect others hard work in regards to that when editing. That would go a long way in avoiding edit wars. RMANCIL 23:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I do not really care what content should be on here, and what details should be moved to History of the San Diego Chargers and other sub-articles. If User:Pats1 and User:RMANCIL cannot agree on what it is and continue to edit war, I will have to fully protect this page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

RMANCIL, you need to understand that it doesn't matter how many hours of "hard work" you put in. If the content is not suitable for the article, it will be removed. We've talked about this in the past. As Zzyzx advised, I'm not going to continue an edit war every weekend over this. If you want to contribute to the internet POV commentary and year-by-year specific information about the Chargers, nobody is stopping you from opening your own website and doing that. But the San Diego Chargers article itself (yearly specific articles are a different story) is not the place for this. I'm sorry, but this isn't a highly-debatable point. The Wikipedia foundation rules and guidelines are clear. Attempting to circumvent or ignore them will not change anything. From WP:STYLE to WP:NPOV to WP:CITE to WP:INFO, the edits I make are only an effort to follow these guidelines. I am at my wit's end at trying to convince you of this. Pats1 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You have simply copied my content and changed the head lines to a decade listing which works. Our problems exist due to your poor ability to have dialog concerning edits. You and your buddy Moe both made reverts keeping paragraphs that were basically word for word duplication of each other. You should be able to work on this article without the drama if only you would try. Look up reverts and the guidelines in place or look at your talk page as I listed that information for you there but apparently you failed to read it. Please do follow Zzyzx advise and try reading your content before a revert. Thanks RMANCIL 00:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be sure that content does not comply with fair use rules before making a edit. If your not 100% sure ask for help and use the talk pages. RMANCIL 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Moe is an aspiring administrator and does most of his work with fair use images. I think he knows what he's talking about. Pats1 22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please save the opinions Pat. One of the photos removed in fact was a fair use photo , some of the others if given the chance may also have passed the grade. Dialog is important no one here is the end all be all final word thank God. RMANCIL 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You said "Please be sure that content does not comply with fair use rules before making a edit"? Actually it should every time, and the edits I made did in fact stay up to the fair use guideline. I know they were non-free, that is why I removed them, I don't need help. And if you don't stop revert warring WP:MOS changes RMANCIL, I'll start handing out warnings for contining to do so. — Moe ε 23:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Having dialog and following the guidelines is why we have them. Please read before you edit you have duplicated your friend's erroneous edit forcing me to revert. We should not have two paragraphs basically duplicating one another in content word for word.RMANCIL 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you have to revert the entire edit, RMANCIL. You could have easily just fixed the section headers. There's obviously something else behind that revert, so I suggest you keep in mind WP:CIVIL. Pats1 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read what you just wrote and follow your own words. However it was not just the section headers it was two large paragraphs duplicated largely word for word, ask your buddy Moe to do the same. I also recommend the two of you proof read before you make a huge change( edit) to avoid this type of mistake. Thanks for the dialog however it is a great step in the right direction. Thank's RMANCIL 00:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the nit-picking. Somehow, a section from the pre-copyedit version of the page made it into there, thanks to an editwar you seem content on perpetuating. Pats1 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you preview the content before you edit you won't make those mistakes. It also helps to read and comprehend notes that are made on the previous edit if you desire not to make the same mistake over and over. RMANCIL 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I copyedited the thing in the first place. Why would I need to read something I already reviewed? Again, thanks to the endless reverts, there was some edit conflict that fell through the cracks. Stop playing these games, RMANCIL, it's getting tiring. Pats1 12:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Epic in Miami/Freezer Bowl

These games are two of the best in the history of the pro game of football and deserve more than a brief mention. The research and the resulting story on the Bengals opening and closing doors that allow frigid winds to blow into the stadium are big issues and add to the content of this articule. We should not eliminate this content nor the references simply due to the fact that we struggle finding a easy link to another reference source that is on line. When we reference to times before the Internet existed we will find we can not reference to the Internet. RMANCIL 11:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For the second time, RMANCIL: These two games already have separate articles: Freezer Bowl and The Epic in Miami. If you want to contribute to these articles, please do so, but just remember to follow Wikipedian guidelines. Pats1 19:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What I have asked for and based on the guide lines what needs to take place is a discussion from other editors as to if they agree or disagree with your thoughts on eliminating or radically reducing content on these games on the main article. I DO NOT BELIEVE that virtually all mention of these games should be eliminated from the main page as you seem to think. We disagree on this and as such clearly we need to allow for other editors to give their thoughts and opinions rather than you or I trying to impose our will. I posted a template that was designed to notify all interested parties of this edit war and to bring level heads to the discussion please allow that process to take place and stop the edit war. RMANCIL 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to break the news to you, but the only editors who have contributed on a regular basis to this article lately have been you and I. Who are you expecting to get input from? You've gotten input from Moe Epsilon and Zzyzx11 and chosen to completely ignore it. Will you not stop until you find an editor who agrees fully with your edits? The dialogue has certainly existed (see: above, your talk page, my talk page), but you have chosen to ignore the guidelines and comments being offered, throw up some "Who else agrees with me?" and "Here's a tag to let you know I'm in an editor war with you!" tags and quite frankly I'm getting sick of it. Hopefully Zzyzx11 will protect the page. That's exactly what needs to happen, unfortunately. Pats1 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The rules clearly indicate a need for a consensus on this before Pats1 edits out this information again as he has done so more than 3 times in the past. RMANCIL 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're essentially repeating information that has already/should be presented in The Epic in Miami. If you want to start a poll to find out if this is true, be my guest. Pats1 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't need a poll, you and I disagree on what is/isn't enough content. You seem to think that the answer is to continue to edit my content out with out a consensus there in is the problem. Why not allow some debate before you edit out the content? Again and again! RMANCIL 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"You don't need a poll?" Haven't you been parading for the past two weeks about having a consensus? And you don't want a poll? Guess what! That's how Wikipedia works! Check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Check out WP:AFD. How do you think most every situation is resolved? With a poll! If someone nominates an article for deletion, editors vote on whether to "Keep" or "Delete." Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today if you don't believe me. I don't disagree at all on what is/isn't content. I've told you twice now - instead of wasting your time lobbying for a few paragraphs about the game to go on San Diego Chargers, why don't you work at making The Epic in Miami a good article? If you don't think you should do this, please tell me why not. Pats1 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If any one cares to look you will see this Edit war 3 revert rule notice was in place and was removed by Pats1 and that he with out allowing other editors a chance to support his edits or mine he has once again imposed his will be undoing my work. RMANCIL 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be the one you left on my talk page, thinking that someone would see it and believe a third party had posted it. Nice work. So I try to engage in dialogue on this talk page by posting comments about the article, and you post a "warning" that I'm engaged in an edit war with none other than - drum roll - you. That's meaningless. Pats1 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It however is factual. He has broken the 3 revert rule. RMANCIL 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Find the 4 reverts I made within 24 hours, and post them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Pats1 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

While the reverts have not all taken in place in a 24 hour time frame the guide lines clearly address repeated undo's and edit wars which this clearly is. RMANCIL 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And your failure to acknowledge your part in the situation isn't helping anything. Pats1 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pats1's history of reverts is wide spread and his history of not following guidelines is also clear. Anyone who looks at his contributions history will find a disturbing pattern of reverts and editor conflicts with numerous editors on numerous pages not just here. Bullying others and forcing your editorial style down peoples throats is not civilized and as such breaks the rules. RMANCIL 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. That was uncalled for. Pats1 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pats1 why do you see fit to have a paragraph on attendance during the Kraft era on the Pats page? While limiting the content of the Epic in Miami to : "they managed to outlast the Miami Dolphins in the divisional round, 41-38, in a game that became known as The Epic in Miami?" RMANCIL 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How are these two situations even remotely similar? How is a sentence or two about a 13-year span comparable to 2-3 paragraphs on a single game that already has a separate article: The Epic in Miami? Please tell me why. Pats1 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A paragraph about attendance vs. a sentence or two about this legendary game that you use the fact that one has a sub page as justification for limiting references and content while spending much more space on attendance figures leads to a rather bland article perhaps you may want a poll on that. RMANCIL 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a condition known as jameverythingononearticle-itis. In fact, you have made my point. In truth, there is one sentence on the Patriots' attendance in a 13-season span versus about 20 paragraphs on a Chargers playoff game. I think that's fair. There are separate articles on Wikipedia for a reason. Not everything has to be adequately "encylopedizied" on one article. Would you support having the complete history of every team on the National Football League article? Of course not. Would you even support having blurbs about every team on the National Football League article? Probably not. That's why there's San Diego Chargers and New England Patriots. That's why there's History of the New England Patriots, Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots, New England Patriots seasons, New England Patriots strategy, etc. That's also why there's Freezer Bowl, The Epic in Miami, Holy Roller, San Diego Chargers logos and uniforms, etc. Trying to adequately present all this information on a single article would be a colossal disaster. Pats1 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that to be outlandish. You completely eliminated content from the Chargers' article. This content is very substantial as well as insightful. The fine details of both games can and should merit their own page but I feel that does not mean that the main page should be completely shallow and free of content. RMANCIL 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For the fifth time now, The Epic in Miami. The Epic in Miami. The Epic in Miami. More content isn't always better - 3 paragraphs on a single game is far, far too much for one article. That's why there was a separate article on the game. If you want to add info about the game, add it there. It isn't difficult. Pats1 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A good article should be interesting and entice readers to explore more history. The links to more in depth pages then will be used. The mere fact that a game has its own page should not eliminate all narrative on the main page. RMANCIL 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A sentence or two more would probably be fine, but 3 whole paragraphs is excessive, and is only repeating what is already on the separate article. Also, we're talking about a single game here. If it was a season, then certainly more information would be acceptable on the main page. Pats1 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you Pats1 or others may disagree and that is your right however a discussion should take place before a decision goes forward and from what I can see you Pats1 are not the final word so please stop making these edits until others are heard and a consensus is formed. Thank you in advance. RMANCIL 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, what do you think this talk page is for? What do you think has been going on for the past two weeks on this page? Crickets? Pats1 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The talk is for a consensus to be formed. Until you have one that supports your point of view I don't think you have the right to edit out my material. RMANCIL 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN. Pats1 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you two currently cannot agree on what should be on this page and how to apply the lessons learned on such pages as Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive4, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New England Patriots. For now, I am protecting the page from this point on to stop both of you from edit warring for the past two weeks.

If you would like to gain more opinions, feel free to make a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League where you can find other users who are interested in NFL articles. You can also make a request on Wikipedia:Peer review for more feedback. As for me, since I am the admin who is applying the full protection on this article, I feel it is more appropriate to sit back and remain neutral as to what specific content should be here, and not get fully involved (unlike some other admins around here who have been involved in edit wars, protected page and received much criticism for it). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish you had protected the page before Pats1 made yet another unsupported edit leaving my content out again specifically after I ask for him to wait on a consensus. RMANCIL 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE. Pats1 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Even on this page Pats1 edits out my content. Amazing......For those who are interested please review the history of this page to get the complete picture other wise you won't. RMANCIL 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. I fixed a few spelling errors and indented some stuff for readability, and also removed large chunks of text you copied from the article. If you want to show where I edited/you edited, try adding diff links instead. Pats1 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

On the main page this edit which I did and that I believe to be of considerable interest to most Charger fans has been completely removed by Pats1: "QB Dan Fouts who in subsequent interviews stated that the Bengal management opened exit doors allowing gust of frigid wind to blow into the stadium when the Charger were on offense and subsequently shut them when the Bengals had the ball during the 1st half of the contest , he also stated that the practice stopped after intervention from N.F.L. officials after Charger management complained .The open door policy irked San Diego Coach Don Coryell I'd rather not get into any discussion about it, Coryell said, referring to the fact one of the huge sliding doors at each end of the stadium was raised during the first period, while the Chargers were heading that direction. Coryell said the open door added to the difficulty passing because it created more wind on the field. The Charger coach noted the door was closed in the second quarter when the Bengals were going in that direction and was reopened before the third period began. We had to request that it be closed at the start of the third quarter and the officials stopped the game to close it, Coryell said. I guess it was opened for the band. There was, however, no band show.The door is no excuse, though, he said. We were beaten by a good team. The game will always be remembered as the "Freezer Bowl."" RMANCIL 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

For the second time, all of that info can go in Freezer Bowl. All those quotes and such are way too specific for an article on the San Diego Chargers in general. That's why there is a separate page. Use it!!! Pats1 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion one that is not shared by me. RMANCIL 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Then put up a poll to find out others' feelings. That's how it's done on Wikipedia. Pats1 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This content is very substantial as well as insightful. The fine details of both games can and should merit their own page but I feel that does not mean that the main page should be completely shallow and free of content. A good article should be interesting and entice readers to explore more history. The links to more in depth pages then will be used. The mere fact that a game has its own page should not eliminate all narrative on the main page. RMANCIL 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you already say this? And because you didn't get the response you wanted you posted the exact same thing again? For the second time now, a paragraph of post-game quotes (unsourced, mind you) belong on the game's separate article. And for the second time again, feel free to add another sentence or two about the game on the main article. But anything more than that, as I've already said, is overkill. It's just repeating what's already on the separate article. Pats1 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The " Epic in Miami " was a headline section for this article before I made any edits on the Charger article. In fact it has been for a very long time. How Pats1 can take a head line section and reduce it to just a sentence and feel that is appropriate is hard for me to understand. RMANCIL 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's called a copyedit. I posted the comments on the talk page. I haven't seen you respond to a single one yet. You just keep posting over and over again about how I never "ask permission" to make an edit to Wikipedia. It's getting annoying. Pats1 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You may call it a copy edit I call it a hack job. You did not have any consensus to make that edit. RMANCIL 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Following Wikipedian guidelines like WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE don't require a consensus. RMANCIL, you may want to read up at Wikipedia:How to copy-edit. Almost all of my edits fell under general MOS and grammar/spelling/formatting corrections. Pats1 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Part of the answer clearly comes from Pats1 who looks at this game as just a single game like any other playoff game. Interesting enough he made edits recently on the "Epic in Miami article however he must have failed to read much of the content other wise he would not post "A sentence or two more would probably be fine, but 3 whole paragraphs is excessive. Also, we're talking about a single game here. If it was a season, then certainly more information would be acceptable on the main page." This game is not just another playoff game but rather one of if not in fact the greatest pro football games ever played and as such deserves more than a sentence or two in any article that holds itself out to being insightful of the history of the San Diego Chargers and the NFL. RMANCIL 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV. And for the umpteenth time - THE GAME HAS IT'S OWN SEPARATE ARTICLE: The Epic in Miami! What do you want? A whole WikiProject dedicated to the game? It to be linked on the Wikipedia navigation bar? It has its own article. I've lost count of how many times I've told you this. Why don't you, instead of pointlessly arguing here, try to get The Epic in Miami up to WP:GA or even WP:FA status? Put your time to good use. Pats1 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of I don't agree that due to the fact the game has its own page it eliminates all but a sentence or two for it on the main page. Again you Pats1 have made your own rule in this regard I do not see any guide lines that prohibit several sentences or a paragraph devoted to it in general on the main article. In fact most articles which have internal links do spend several sentences and paragraphs on similar material. RMANCIL 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to answer my question. New England Patriots and Chicago Bears are both featured articles, meaning they've passed scrutiny from editors - in multiple copyedits - and are "a cut above" all other articles - including all other NFL team articles. Do either of these two articles devote 3, 4, or 5 paragraphs to a single game, or do they make reference to it and then provide a link to a page with "further information?" Pats1 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that Pats1 is dumbing down the content on this article and continually uses the excuse that virtually all information that is contained or mentioned on any other page renders any content to be excessive on this the main article. It is my belief that sub pages should go into more depth than the main article however that does not mean the general out line and results along with key highlights must be eliminated from the main page. RMANCIL 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see New England Patriots and Chicago Bears, both of which are featured articles (see Zzyzx11's comments). Please find me, in the articles themselves, information on a single game greater than one or two sentences. When you can do that, come back to me. Pats1 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick reference to the Miami page it has more than one or two sentences in fact a paragraph or more, and here is a Bears take: One famous victory during that period was their 73–0 victory over the favored Washington Redskins at Griffith Stadium in the 1940 NFL Championship Game; the score is still an NFL record for lopsided results.[8] The secret behind the one-sided outcome was the introduction of a new offensive formation by Halas. The T-formation, as Halas named it, involved two running backs instead of the traditional one in the backfield. Luckman's success at the quarterback position for the Bears has not been matched, as he still holds club records for passing.[9] Also another on Brian's song which has its own page: After declining throughout the 1950s, the team rebounded in 1963 to capture their 8th NFL Championship, which would be their last until 1985. The late 1960s and early 1970s produced notable players like Dick Butkus, Gale Sayers, and Brian Piccolo, who died of Embryonal carcinoma in 1970. The American television network ABC aired a movie about Piccolo in 1971 entitled Brian's Song, starring James Caan and Billy Dee Williams in the roles of Piccolo and Sayers respectively; Jack Warden won an Emmy Award for his performance as Halas. The movie was later released for theater screenings after first being shown on television. RMANCIL 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never read through the Dolphins page. Therefore, I can't comment on that. As far as the Bears go, check the first quote. There's a single sentence about the game. The rest is about the T-formation and it's roots with the Bears, not any game-specific information or quotes. The latter is Brian's song - also not about a single game, but rather a culture point. And it's still contained within a handful of sentences. Pats1 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

However the point still remains we do not have a rule on this and as such your reverts and editing out content is uncalled for. RMANCIL 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I also see that Pats1 has a history of major edits and reverts on this article, he has reverted or major edited my work 17 times with out any discussion or consensus on this page or any other. He also has made it his duty to follow my work on other pages and has reverted or major edit deletion and additional 10 times again with out discussion. RMANCIL 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, didn't you just say this yesterday? How many times will keep posting the same thing over and over again? Until someone responds with "Yes, RMANCIL, you are absolutely correct?" Pats1 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you ever stop? RMANCIL 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you not posted the same thing over and over again? Have you not gone to others' talk pages to elicit support in an irrelevant (to them) matter? Pats1 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

His reverts are not limited to just me he has a pattern which most likely follows his theme here which seems to be to limit the depth on the main articles. Reverts include: "(top) 22:48, 13 July 2007 (hist) (diff) 2007 NFL season (Undid revision 144403971 by NoseNuggets (talk)) (top)11:27, 13 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Detroit Lions (Undid revision 144367122 by Sportzfan (talk))01:57, 13 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Super Bowl XXXVII (Undid revision 144299219 by 69.136.32.114 (talk)) (top)20:59, 12 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Cincinnati Bengals (Undid revision 144194441 by 64.20.129.204 (talk)) (top) 20:56, 12 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Philadelphia Eagles (Undid revision 144230700 by 70.127.9.170 (talk)) 20:34, 12 July 2007 (hist) (diff) New England Patriots (Undid revision 144182665 by 67.86.122.109 (talk))12:05, 12 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Super Bowl XX (Undid revision 144115498 by 66.30.168.132 (talk)) (top) 12:04, 12 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Miami Dolphins (Undid revision 144119571 by 67.81.187.13 (talk)) 00:57, 12 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Brian Lowe (Undid revision 144081672 by Anthropocentrism (talk))" RMANCIL 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't you put your time to better use? First of all, I have 956 pages on my watchlist. These include hundreds of NFL-related articles. I am constantly checking edits to these articles. If I see vandalism (probably 15-30 times a day), I'll revert these changes, and place a warning on the offender's talk page. If I see edits which blatantly violate WP:NPOV or WP:CITE, then I'll revert those too. If the offender objects, then I will engage in a discussion with the editor about his or her edits. So between these two "chores," I probably make 25-40 reverts a day. If you have a problem with this, I don't know what to tell you. Pats1 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What seems clear to me is that Pats1 feels empowered to run rough shot over Wikipedia. All of these reverts in just a two day span of time and does not include major edit outs of other peoples work such as he has done to mine repeatedly. If you look back further the list of reverts goes on in such a wide spread pattern that it has to be clear that Pat1 has a issue with a lot of contributors not just me. Sure a few of those were most likely true vandalism but how many were not? RMANCIL 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a project for you. I want you to look at any NFL team article, preferably Indianapolis Colts, Dallas Cowboys, or Pittsburgh Steelers. I want you to look at each diff page for every edit. And I want you to make a tally of how many of these were vandalism. My guess is, your tally will reach 5-15 per week, depending on the article and time of year. If you think almost every edit made to Wikipedia is constructive and not vandalism, you ought to think again. My time is split pretty evenly between reverting vandalism (and placing warning tags) and contributing to NFL team articles, and especially, NFL roster templates. Pats1 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that his believe that any in depth information only belongs on some sub article may be part of the problem however he should get a consensus prior to reverting repeatedly. Until he has that his reverts are unjustified. RMANCIL 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: Definition of disruptive editing and editors" This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators. In addition, such editors may:

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

At this point their is no consensus on Pat1 view that individual games such as the "Epic in Miami" or "The Freezer Bowl" which have their own page should limit the mention of these contest and or some narrative of these events to one or two sentences which has been his reason for 17 reverts or deletions of my content. In fact based on response including content posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League under Main article content depth the consensus is that a paragraph on these games in fact would be in order.

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: This article is about the control of content, Pats1 is trying to control just how much is and what kind should be allowed. He lacks any consensus to support his position at this time.

If he so chooses he should take the issue forward to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation but failing that he should not revert or delete my content on the before mentioned contest provided that I follow the general consensus which we now have until and unless that should change at a future date.. RMANCIL 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are you describing yourself? Because I'm the one following fundamental policies, not disregarding them. I'm also the one citing sources and removing original research. You're the one trying to discourage me from editing this article, telling me to "stay with your team's (New England Patriots) article. So, yes, I think you fall under the criteria described. Pats1 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as you will abide with the consensus and stop deleting and reverting my content after every edit you can say anything you wish. Thanks in advanced for your cooperation. RMANCIL 21:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So as long as your content is on the article, no matter how many guidelines and policies it violates, you will be happy? I think I'm beginning to understand you. Pats1 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I plan on following all the guidelines and policies to the very best of my abilities and to conform with the consensus we now have in place. I also hope that you will as well. I do sincerely hope that you will stop this edit war and allow me to do my best to bring quality content to this page and to other pages related to this project. RMANCIL 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing that since day 1. Just remember one thing: more content isn't always better. Pats1 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The established consensus is that I may post more than one or two sentences and I plan on following that consensus and I hope you will not be a problem.RMANCIL 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"The established consensus?!?" Where do you make this stuff up?!?! Pats1 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League Main article content depth asked for help on this subject following administrative suggestions for unbiased editor help. Here is the response: "Although I'm not going to get involved in a personal dispute between two editors, I think I have an example that will help you guys out. I would suggest one short and concise paragraph at the main article page on each of the games in question. Then you can supplement those paragraphs with a {{Main}} tag as is done with Ty Cobb#1910: the Chalmers Award controversy. Hope this helps. Jmfangio 14:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)" Coupled with my response we now have a consensus on this subject. On the other hand you have no support and as a result no consensus. 2 out of 3 editors who responded were in favor of not limiting to 2 or 3 sentences. RMANCIL 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I ask you to please stop your edit war, you do great work and clearly are a major contributor to Wikipedia. I am sure your intentions are great lets move on now thanks. RMANCIL 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me how Jmfangio supports your cause in any way. Please show me on New England Patriots and Chicago Bears, or even History of the New England Patriots or History of the Chicago Bears where a single game has earned its own section. And if you haven't noticed already, the section on Ty Cobb is about a single SEASON in Cobb's career (which was 23 years - much less than the 87-year history of the Bears or the 46-year history of the Pats). So the section is not about a single award, game, or month. It's about a single season. And since the Bears' article operates in a timeframe four times larger than the Cobbs article (at least in terms of playing time), single seasons simply can't have their own sections on the main article, nevermind single games, not matter how great the game was (The depth of the two history articles is, though, enough for single seasons as sections). So, because of this, The Epic in Miami isn't something that's going to exist in its own sub-section on the Chargers main article. A History of the San Diego Chargers article would, possibly, allow for that extent of depth. But again, the absence of such an article is not a license for the inclusion of a single-game section on the main article. Therefore, if the game doesn't exist in its own sub-section, then the {{main}} gets thrown out - leaving the alternative of just a link ("known as the Epic in Miami") as a form of extension - which is already present in the current version of the article. And also because of all of this, the depth of the single game on the main page is limited. So, for the second time, the more content (that is, on a single article) isn't always better. Spreading the content around to separate articles, and adding more articles when content increases, not expanding a main article is how Wikipedia works. I've already explained this. A year ago, History of the New England Patriots did not exist. When the history of the NEP content gradually increased over the months, a History of the New England Patriots article was created to ease the content load of the main New England Patriots article. This concept can be applied to almost every major Wikipedian article. Check out United States. I'm sure when that page was first created (2001? 2002?), that was the lone article about the United States of America. As content gradually increased, articles like Geography of the United States, History of the United States, and The United States in World War I were created. The final example (The United States in World War I) is comparable to The Epic in Miami as United States is comparable to San Diego Chargers. Does The United States in World War I have its own section in United States? Nope. How many sentences about The United States in World War I are included in United States? 4 very short sentences. If we can agree on another (complex - as opposed to the simple sentences in United States) or two about the game that can be implemented in the main article, I'd be glad to put a tag up for an administrator to make the edit. Pats1 22:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Again the consensus is that more than one or two sentences can be used on the main page. The debate is over, we have a consensus on this subject. Please follow guidelines and stop this edit war. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation would be your next move if you wish other wise please stop the edit war and respect the process. I hope we can move forward with out any more problems. I plan on adding a paragraph on each game as was suggested by a third party and to add in depth content on the separate articles in place for those contest. Thanks in advance. RMANCIL 23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You do a pretty damn good job of sticking your fingers in your ears and completely disregarding everything I just said, while at the same time going off about how there's not enough discussion on the subject. Honestly, I don't know what to expect from you anymore. I try to approach you from the left, and you sidestep to the right. I try to approach you from the right, and you sidestep to the left. Once you got someone to, in your eyes, agree with you, you immediately stopped considering any other options. It's ridiculous. Read what I told I wrote above and show something (something!) that you've acknowledged it, instead of just giving these stock responses each and every time (and then, of course, complaining that there's not enough discussion). Pats1 00:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was asked by RMANCIL to give my 2 cents on this issue since I am a major editor in the Chicago Bears articles. I believe that RMANCIL can write about 1 short paragraph maybe 2 (by short I mean 4-6 sentences) describing the game as apart of Charger lore, but more detailed information should be placed in the Epic in Miami article. There is no need for 5-6 paragraphs on a single game no matter how great it is. I believe if you keep your reference to the game modest and allow for a meeting point with Pats1 this Edit War can end. Once again my proposal is 1-2 short paragraph reference to the whole game as apart of Charger lore with actual game details saved for the Epic in Miami article, which is to be linked from the main page to the secondary article either through a intext link or the more details on this topic template. --Happyman22 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making time to put forth your thoughts on this subject, Happyman22 RMANCIL 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Happyman22 has a very sound opinion about this, and I think his suggestion should be followed. ChargersFan 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some of this issue has been clouded by the fact that people fail to realize the significance of the Epic in Miami to the Chargers organization. Having never won a Super Bowl (with only an AFL title in 1963), the Epic in Miami has a greater significance to the history of the Chargers than a similar game might have for other teams. Even if the Dolphins had won the Epic in Miami, it certainly wouldn't mean as much to them, since they've won multiple Super Bowls, and even had a perfect season in 1972. Until the Chargers win a Super Bowl, the Epic in Miami IS their greatest game as far as history is concerned. As I've already stated, I think Happyman22 had a good suggestion about what (and how much) should be included about the game, but a little bit of leeway (in the form of one or two additional sentences per paragraph -- or perhaps even a third paragraph altogether) should be allowed due to the importance of the game as it specifically pertains to the Chargers franchise. ChargersFan 21:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary request: What's the issue?

Hi guys - I'm hoping someone can summarize what's going on here for me. I don't really want to read through the entire thing. I would ask that user names be left out as I am not really concerned about who did who to what. I remember looking at this a while ago - when it was much shorter. Is this still about the inclusion of games in these articles? Is there anything else now being talked about? Again, I'm not asking for a summary of other's opinions, I'm just asking for someone to list out the issues at hand. Jmfangio| ►Chat  10:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to include information consisting with two paragraphs on the "Epic in Miami " as well as the "Freezer Bowl" a edit war resulted and the page was locked. We have had a discussion and requested opinions from other editors which we hoped to form a consensus on the issue. It appears that 4 are in favor of allowing this content while Pat1 is not.RMANCIL 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent job of following his request. Pats1 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• A couple of notes: Please stop bring up who said what. Please stop with the peanut comments. They both contribute to the problem. This issue has been dealt with all across wikipedia. To give you an example: I have been working on Joe Montana. In the section on his professional career I used WP:LENGTH and WP:SS to guide my edit. As such, there are two relatively short paragraphs on the game/play. A {{main}} tag has been used to direct the reader to a more comprehensive article on the topic. Stop with the peanut comments. If there was nobody willing to step in, I would understand the continued hostility. But let's move past this he said/she said and get to the content. Wiki documentation has provided a "path of least resistence". Jmfangio| ►Chat  22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In a nut shell: Summary style: When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a

Main article: [[:<name of detailed article>]]

or comparable template under the section title. To help preserve links to the edit history of the text being moved, it is essential that the edit summary for the creation of the new article that you write links back to the original article. This is excatly what I and others want to do.It seems to me that articules should have depth and create interest and at the same time allow a link that would then recount the blow by blow of these contest. RMANCIL 11:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know if a play-by-play is really the ideal; but that aside, that is an appropriate way of dealing with this. You can work it into the history section quite easily. Jmfangio| ►Chat  12:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So how can we get the ball rolling on the Charger page? RMANCIL 17:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to hear pats1 voice a comment, as clearly he has some concerns. I would hate to direct you one way or the other without hearing them. Jmfangio| ►Chat  17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the page sticks to verifiable, properly sourced facts that follow WP:MOS, I'm fine. Pats1 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Alright guys, I'll go mention this to the admins and see if i can't get this thing unlocked for you. Thanks! Jmfangio| ►Chat  18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Have at it guys! Let me know if you want my advice in the future. I'm going to unwatch this page. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ThanksRMANCIL 04:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref names

Perhaps someone (I don't feel like it right now) can go through and set some <ref name="NAME"></ref> so there aren't so many duplicate references in the reflist. Pats1 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's done. Pats1 02:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Pat1 why don't you jump on the uniform section and do the ref material? Or do you prefer that I do that as well and then you can look over my shoulder and comment on my work? It is the last section that needs some real work.RMANCIL 20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Please make sure you do not copy anything word-for-word from any websites onto Wikipedia. This has happened in particular with the 2000s chronology and has been immediately removed. Pats1 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to read the material again it is not a word for word copy. It does reflect the same facts. The change in coachs and GMs did take place and must be referenced in order to tell the teams history. Please stop your reverts.RMANCIL 20:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If at any time you feel like improving material please do so before you revert. You can also leave me a message if you have issues with my work thanks. You can also do some research on some of this material as well.RMANCIL 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a debatable situation. Material in violation of copyright should be removed ASAP. And you said you didn't copy this word-by-word? Then what's this:

Chargers.com: "LaDainian Tomlinson amasses 195 total yards from scrimmage against Green Bay to raise his season total to 2,011 and in the process becomes the first player in team history and only the eighth player in NFL history to record consecutive 2,000-yard seasons."

RMANCIL's edit: "LaDainian Tomlinson amass 195 total yards from scrimmage against Green Bay Packers to raise his season total to 2,011 and became the first player in team history and only the eighth player in NFL history to record consecutive 2,000-yard seasons."

Chargers.com: "A.J. Smith is promoted to Executive Vice President-General Manager, replacing his close friend John Butler"

RMANCIL's edit: "April 22 A.J. Smith is promoted to Executive Vice President-General Manager, replacing his close friend John Butler"

Also, keep WP:NOT#INFO in mind. Articles on Wikipedia should be written in some type of encyclopedic format, with transitions and flow (i.e. prose). They cannot be just essentially bullet points of information copied from chronologies or timelines and presented in such a format. "Telling the team's history" may be paramount in your mind, but it must conform to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. What you added has absolutely no flow. It's simply an indiscriminate collection of facts and figures from the 2003 season. Pats1 03:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is what you deleted :The Chargers signed free agent QB Doug Flutie,formerly with Buffalo and traded the top pick in the 2001 NFL Draft to the Atlanta Falcons in exchange for the first-round pick (fifth overall) and third-round selection in the 2001 draft. The Chargers also obtained wide receiver/kick returner Tim Dwight and the Falcons' second-round pick in the 2002 draft. The Chargers used their top two selections in the 2001 draft to select running back Texas Christian University running back LaDainian Tomlinson and Purdue quarterback Drew Brees of [37]. Coach Riley is replaced by Marty Schottenheimer January of 2002 , Coach Schottenheimer Charger squad opened the season with four straight victories making him the only coach in team history to win his first four games[37]. General Manager John Butler would succumb to cancer after a nine-month struggle in April of 2003[37]. The team trade's Junior Seau to Miami Dolphins for a draft choice in 2004 NFL Draft. Seau was selected to 2002 AFC Pro Bowl squad for the 12th time in his career and in his final season with the Chargers, he was chosen by teammates as the recipient of the Emil Karas Award as the team’s Most Inspirational Player[40]. April 22 A.J. Smith is promoted to Executive Vice President-General Manager, replacing his close friend John Butler, Smith and Butler had worked together with the Bills playing key roles with Buffalo's Super Bowl teams[41]. Smith goes on to name Buddy Nix Assistant General Manager-Director of Player Personnel[37]. LaDainian Tomlinson amass 195 total yards from scrimmage against Green Bay Packers to raise his season total to 2,011 and became the first player in team history and only the eighth player in NFL history to record consecutive 2,000-yard seasons[37]. Tomlinson in a 21-14 win over the Raiders rushes for a team-record 243 yards. Tomlinson would catch eight passes in the same game to become the first player in NFL history to rush for 1,000 yards and catch 100 passes in the same season [37].

If you would like to improve the stucture please do so . If you think you can lead then please do so by example.

Let me point you to WP:BATTLE for your reading.RMANCIL 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Lose the "I'm the victim!" attitude. You added two paragraphs of information word-for-word from a third party website - violating copyright. And you're blaming it on me? I removed it because it is against the policies of Wikipedia, not because I'm trying to do battle with you. So stop playing the victim and read the text right below the "Save page" button: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." The material is being removed again. If you try to add it back without it being word-for-word, I will alert the proper parties. Pats1 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are full of it , why are you such a pain? You found two lines which you took out of context and delete two paragraphs. You object to a reference but don't do any leg work to find a better one. Of course it was CNN SI.You need to read WP:BATTLE and understand it. IF you want to improve a article then do so. You seem to want to try and over view and issue orders. Why not try to cooperate and participate instead of demanding rewrites, why don't you get involved in providing some content and reference's yourself?RMANCIL 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Pat1 is more interested in edit wars and trying to get this page locked down than in the completion of it. I hope his actions prove me wrong however that remains to be seen. I will wait for Pat1 to edit and reference the missing material from 2000 section in order to avoid a edit war which seems to be the focus.RMANCIL 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in removing material that violates copyright laws. You are interested in bringing it back. Who is at fault again? Pats1 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is your pov , again do the edit yourself. The time line has a huge hole in it and needs to be repaired. I have failed to do a edit that does not violate copyright laws based on your interpretation so please do it yourself and save us both a lot of time.RMANCIL 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's my POV?!? You sound like Butch Stearns after Ron Borges got busted for plagiarism. Stearns, on a newscast, read the two passages side-by-side - which were exactly the same - but then said "Plagiarism? I'm not so sure about that." He was ridiculed (justly) for that. The time line has a huge hole in it - great! Then fix it with sourced research in your own words. Don't blame it on me because I removed it. I don't have time to do that research. Do it yourself if you want it to be there. Pats1 15:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have time??? That is all you have. You choose to try and have a problem and avoid solutions. You have time to have a issue with me but not the time to fix the problem as you see it. You do have time to edit war however. Why are you such a ass hole? RMANCIL 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are things?

Okay guys, can you each summarize for me what content disputes are happening right now? I think the last I was involved was about the games and we came to an agreement that the important games could be referenced with the {{main}} tag and a few summary paragraphs. The more concise you can make your responses, the easier it will be to get caught up. Let's be happy, too much anger floating around here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

None to speak of. Only a dispute as to whether it's my POV or not that there was text copied from a website, even after it was placed side-by-side. I won't name any names as to who is claiming this. But it does happen to be the person who's slapping me with a few personal attacks on a few different pages, including on this one. Pats1 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

He deletes several paragraphs when two sentences are in question. I have resourced just about every ref question in this entire articule and if I failed to reword a sentence dealing with a promotion or some yardage total big deal ( people can make mistakes). The way to handle it is to rewrite the sentence if possible so as to not be in copyright question.( FIND A SOLUTION) Some issue such as stats and or promotions or descriptions concerning relationships can be tricky. That said Pat1 can edit the sentence as well or perhaps better than I , he can also find a articule for reference material rather than always sighting a need or finding fault with a resource. Instead he simply edits out several paragraphs and insults me. I am not on payroll here nor do I stand to gain in any material way, this is community service nothing more.RMANCIL 22:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Would one of you be so kind as to post the content in question here? I will format a collapsible box in case it is long. Insert it into that if you don't mind. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed text

Chargers.com: "LaDainian Tomlinson amasses 195 total yards from scrimmage against Green Bay to raise his season total to 2,011 and in the process becomes the first player in team history and only the eighth player in NFL history to record consecutive 2,000-yard seasons." RMANCIL'sArticle edit: "LaDainian Tomlinson amass 195 total yards from scrimmage against Green Bay Packers to raise his season total to 2,011 and became the first player in team history and only the eighth player in NFL history to record consecutive 2,000-yard seasons." Chargers.com: "A.J. Smith is promoted to Executive Vice President-General Manager, replacing his close friend John Butler" RMANCIL'sArticle edit: "April 22 A.J. Smith is promoted to Executive Vice President-General Manager, replacing his close friend John Butler"

There may be more, as I haven't checked everything yet. Pats1 23:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I think leaving "who said" what out will help reduce potential PAs. If there is a desire to have that information relayed, and there is a dispute over copyrighting, could we not rewrite that text to avoid the problems? If we don't have a problem with it being included, how about we rewrite it and use a reference. Would that help? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's obviously the only solution and something I've recommended since the start. But there is somebody out there who doesn't want to do that. Pats1 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't we let everyone speak for themselves. If the information is agreed upon as useful, let's see what we can do. Pats1, would you write up an alternative with a reference tag? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what the material is. I even think some of what was copied was a bit too detailed (lots of stats) for a main article on the team. But no, I really don't have time to figure out what should come back, what needs to be changed, and what needs to be referenced in this. I'll continue to watch this article and RMANCIL's improvement drive and make minor fixes as necessary, but I have some other goals to accomplish, such as getting 2006 New England Patriots season to GA status. Pats1 00:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• That seems perfectly reasonable, but if you have a "problem" with a particular edit because of copyright infringement, it might be best if you rework the content rather than remove it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the seven paragraphs which included the two sentences that Pat1 found to be a issue. I hope that they meet the test. That is my third and final rewrite. Should anyone wish to improve on this work please do so but please stop deleting huge volumes of work.RMANCIL 11:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jmfangio for your moderation in this matter RMANCIL 11:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Happy to help, just let me know if you guys have anything else you think a third party could help with. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

strange religion?

I remember during the early 1980s, one could not get football cards for several players, they were members of a religion that did not allow still photos. Anyone know anything about this? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

San Diego Super Chargers Song

I keep hearing the Chargers theme song on ESPN and in tributes and such. It's ridiculously awesome and yet catchy all at once. I think mention of it should be added to the wiki considering I'm sure most of you reading this know what song I mean.

Obviously you're referring to "Chargers Anthem" by the band P.O.D.  ;) 66.182.212.7 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Some free images

Here, CC/BY license, can be uploaded to commons. JACOPLANE • 2008-09-28 12:38

Thanks for the link. The photographer took a lot of good pics. Just in case duplicate pictures are not created, I uploaded 4 of them — you can see them here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

0-4 playoff Season

Changed: "The Chargers are the only team to start a season 0-4 and make the playoffs (1994)," to "The Chargers are the only team to start a season 0-4 and make the playoffs (1992)." They started their 1994 (Superbowl bound) season at 6-0. In 1992, they started 0-4, and made the playoffs.68.116.166.71 (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rivals

How come there is no section dedicated to the Charger's rivals (Raiders, Chiefs, Broncos, Colts, Patriots, Giants)? The Charger's/Raider's rivalry is one of the most heated rivalries in the NFL. The Colts and Patriots have become regular playoff rivals with the Chargers, and the Eli Manning incident ignited a rivalry with the Chargers and Giants. 71.10.230.146 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reply*

Actually, the Chargers, Raiders, Broncos, and Chiefs altogether should be considered simply as "division rivals", however, the rivalries can and should be mentioned.

Early on, the Raiders viewed everyone as their rivals coining terms such as: "Raiders against the world". They may not likely have taken it as seriously as San Diego and it's fans. As far as the Patriots go, one could say the same of their "worldly" competitiveness. The Colts would be one of New England's biggest traditional rivals of the decade, but the same history is not as extended with the Chargers. The Patriots did eliminate the Chargers from the playoffs twice, including the AFC Championship game in 2007. There were also regular season games where there has been 2-1 edge to New England, but being that this isn't a consistent annual, it isn't considerable as any tradition that the term rivalry reflects.

However, the Indianapolis Colts have grown increasingly weary of this new San Diego team, extending back to the 2005 season. Consequentially, this was the last time Indianapolis had 13 undefeated wins, and the Chargers were visitors, spoilers, and not playoff bound that year. It is more considerable that this event may soon become a rivalry beyond 2009. It can also be argued, that this rivalry does in fact already exist to some extent for particular fans of both clubs. --Raisin212k (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

All teams seem to have a #1 rival in their division that stands out more than the others (Browns/Steelers, Giants/Eagles, Bills/Dolphins, Patriots/Jets, Packers/Vikings, Cowboys/Redskins). It seems that the Raiders/Chargers rivalry stands out the most in the AFC west, since both teams are vying for California bragging rights, the Raiders had that tenure in Los Angeles (city to city rivalry), and the fact that there are many native San Diegans that are Raiders fans. I think it would be noteworthy to list the divisional rivalries, with a note on the Raiders. I also agree that the Patriots and the Colts have become rivals as well. The Colts/Chargers rivalry reminds me of the Steelers/Raiders rivalry of the 70's. Ihe Miami Dolphins and the San Diego Chargers also had a rivalry in the early 1980's, when both teams were knocking each other out of playoff games. In regards to the Giants, a rivalry was established, due to the whole messy manning situation. This rivalry is mentioned by sports casters everytime the Chargers play the Giants. So a sub-section within the rivalries section can take note of the historical and newer rivalries like "The 1980's Dolphins Rivalry," "The 2000's Colts Rivalry," "The 2000's Patriots Rivalry," and "The Manning Era Giants Rivalry." Many other wiki pages for NFL teams note non-divisional rivalries, and even non-conference rivalries.68.116.166.71 (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Los Angeles Chargers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

11 images, 86 citations. Needs to model after Carolina Panthers and Heidi Game as an FA example. JJ98 (Talk) 19:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 15:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Former player

Was there ever a player with the San Diego Chargers by the name of Antonio McCoy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.156.42 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible relocation: On 12 January, 2016, at the NFL owner's meetings, the owners voted to allow the St. Louis Rams to return to the Los Angeles area. In addition, the Chargers were given the authorization to move, but they'll have to work out lease arrangements with Rams, as the two teams will share the same new stadium in Inglewood, California. A third team, the Oakland Raiders, a division rival of the Chargers, did not garner enough votes from the owners to authorize a move to Los Angeles.2601:1C0:4F01:32E9:180F:A97F:E0D1:B69E (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on San Diego Chargers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141021030918/http://chargers.com/history/chronology to http://www.chargers.com/history/chronology/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090429035157/http://www.profootballhof.com:80/hof/teams.html to http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/teams.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090328144559/http://www.chargers.com:80/history/champions.htm to http://www.chargers.com/history/champions.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150506105339/http://www.football.com/history/index.shtml to http://www.football.com/history/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141021031013/http://chargers.com/history/chronology/chronology-1970-1979.htm to http://www.chargers.com/history/chronology/chronology-1970-1979.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120607034007/http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/almanac/nfl/execofyear.html to http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/almanac/nfl/execofyear.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309072209/http://www.chargers.com:80/history/chronology/chronology-1980-1989.htm to http://www.chargers.com/history/chronology/chronology-1980-1989.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090330202234/http://www.chargers-stats.com:80/Miami.html to http://www.chargers-stats.com/Miami.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120927032624/http://www.referee.com/more/Samples/non_subscribers1206/free_feat_YAT.html to http://www.referee.com/more/Samples/non_subscribers1206/free_feat_YAT.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106003401/http://www.chargers.com/history/chronology/chronology-1990-1999.htm to http://www.chargers.com/history/chronology/chronology-1990-1999.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080920023727/http://www.chargers-stats.com:80/1994.html to http://www.chargers-stats.com/1994.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080407003415/http://www.chargers-stats.com:80/1995.html to http://www.chargers-stats.com/1995.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327153933/http://www.chargers.com:80/history/chronology/chronology-2000.htm to http://www.chargers.com/history/chronology/chronology-2000.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090330203114/http://www.chargers-stats.com:80/years.html to http://www.chargers-stats.com/years.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100125125331/http://www.dallasnews.com:80/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/nfl/halloffame/stories/080606dnspoaikmanspeechnew.7b2f1e7.html to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/nfl/halloffame/stories/080606dnspoaikmanspeechnew.7b2f1e7.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090110085514/http://www.chargers.com:80/team/front_office/aj-smith.htm?&modulePageId=7 to http://www.chargers.com/team/front_office/aj-smith.htm?&modulePageId=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Coaching Staff

The new coaching staff needs to be put on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidesj18 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

Talking about 2016 Vipegt1 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Origin of name

Shouldn't the origin of the name "Chargers" be more detailed? They've used two very distinct types of branding: A horse and a lightning bolt. I'd like to know the rationale behind this dichotomy. Get up out my face! (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Diego Chargers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040804125204/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/football/nfl/news/2001/02/28/sayitaintso_chargers/ to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/2001/02/28/sayitaintso_chargers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening Paragraphs?

The second paragraph of this article contains a great deal of detailed information about the possible relocation to Los Angeles and the events leading up to it. I suggest that the second paragraph be deleted in its entirety, as the first paragraph ends with this solid summary:

On January 12, 2016, the Rams were approved by the NFL to relocate back to Los Angeles for the 2016 NFL season, and the Chargers were given a one-year option to join the Rams in the Los Angeles area. However, team chairman and CEO Dean Spanos announced on January 29, 2016, that the Chargers would remain in San Diego for the 2016 season.

The sections down below then go into all that extra detail and more, which is a better place to put it than the opening paragraphs. SixFourThree (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

On January 12th, 2017, team owner Dean Spanos announced that the Chargers will be moving to Los Angeles to share a stadium with the Los Angeles Rams. 173.76.179.28 (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JustBerry (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It's going to happen today (1/12/17): www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-chargers-move-la-20170111-story.html. DPJ626 (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

They already announced it and Spanos released a letter on the teams website.Dohvahkiin (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

The logo displayed on the Los Angeles Chargers page is wrong. They've created a new logo, but this page still shows the old San Diego Chargers logo. I have no idea how images are uploaded or stored so I can't really be of much more help here. Whoever can update the page should figure out how to display the proper logo image. :) Thanks! GreatRewards (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• The new logo hasn't been officially accepted by the NFL, and apparently it's only a marketing thing and not a game day logo anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you have a source for that? I ask since the NFL tweeted out the logo as well, not to mention the numerous sources claiming it to be their logo. (In addition to the fact that it is their current logo on social media with a different color.) --2600:1008:B025:318B:C327:7B2F:8E3E:4486 (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This just mentions a "source" that the new "LA" logo "appearing on the Chargers' social media accounts is a working logo and has not been approved by the NFL." The Chargers' Twitter has already changed to a different shaded logo using light blue and yellow. The LA Galaxy tweeted an image showing the Chargers wordmark where "San Diego" was just replaced with "Los Angeles". --JonRidinger (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential Name Change

Get ready to change the name of the article to "Los Angeles Chargers". When the NFL owners give a 3/4 yes, the name change will be official. They are at the point of moving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD29:4840:2575:BB10:66AF:F77D (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we change the name to Los Angeles Chargers for all retired players? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggymister (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge with San Diego Chargers

There is no need for a separate History article for the San Diego Chargers. They should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seantpainter (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The history of the San Diego Chargers should be kept separate from the Los Angeles Chargers, at the very least until such time as the team is certain not to rebrand. The Chargers spent 56 years in San Diego. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Baltimore_Colts, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Chicago_Cardinals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_St._Louis_Cardinals_(NFL), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Los_Angeles_Raiders, etc... 70.181.191.134 (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but all this wikipedia info is all about the San DIego Charges not the new Los Angeles Chargers you must start fresh with your input -so truly there is NOTHING TO WRITE- PLEASE MAKE YOUR CORRECTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.111.89 (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Relocation controversy

A good deal of the section on the Chargers' relocation back to Los Angeles, especially the controversial nature, was deleted without comment. I'm going to put it back in, as it is fully sourced and a legitimate subject of public interest. SixFourThree (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree

To have San Diego Chargers above Los Angeles Chargers in team history

I have been adamant about recognizing the team History as a priority. I don't believe having the Chargers' years in Los Angeles Chargers above the years in San Deigo does that. The team only Played ONE Season in Los Angeles while they Chargers played in San Diego for 56 seasons. I have had a problem with an editor's reverts and answers to his reverts which I believe are invalid.

One season will never have any weight compared to 56 and even if they are based in LA, the Chargers do not have a history in Los Angeles there unlike the Rams but the team does have a 55 year History in San Diego which must be recognized in the team History.

Thank you for reading. Bluhaze777 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This basically has nothing to do with "priority" or "weight", which have no factor. These kinds of things are placed in chronological order. They appeared in Los Angeles first, they moved to San Diego second, then they moved back to Los Angeles. Had it been a different city, say San Antonio for example, it would appear as such:

• Los Angeles Chargers (1960)
• San Diego Chargers (1961–2016)
• San Antonio Chargers (2017–present)

However, they happened to move back to Los Angeles where they were before, so it is how it is before you changed it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Los Angeles Chargers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sj-r.com/article/20080730/NEWS/307309952?template=printart
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019055114/http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10008180 to http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10008180
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/04/retiring-number-tricky-math-sullivan/?print&page=all

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701230140/http://www.databasefootball.com/leagues/leagueyear.htm?yr=1981&lg=nfl to http://www.databasefootball.com/leagues/leagueyear.htm?yr=1981&lg=nfl

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Uniform change

In the uniform section it is mentioned the only time the Chargers wore all blue was a Monday night game against the Dolphins. This was true until the 2017 season in which they wore all blue during multiple home games Johnnystranger (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

Revert to previous edit; change San Diego to Los Angeles in title and sidebar Frrealo (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

New "LA" logo section deleted

The section chronicling the Chargers' disastrous 2017 logo change was deleted with the explanation "there was no "new logo" introduced in 2017; it was just a Twitter avatar". That assertion is contradicted by the many sources that had been cited cited - the new mark was announced by the team as an alternate logo. Not a uniform logo, but a logo "for marketing purposes", which is still a logo. Given the national media attention generated by the alternate logo, its inclusion on this page seems more than justified. SixFourThree (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)SixFourThree

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Los Angeles Chargers uniforms.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)