Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles Rams/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Keep STL Rams Separate Discussion

Defunct baseball teams sometimes still have pages. The new content makes this page worthy of being here instead of a redirect page. CollegeGameDayRocks! 00:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not going to revisit this problem again concerning NFL team pages. Baseball has their own ways, the NFL articles are treated differently. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I had no idea. Sorry, I just thought that this idea would be fine. CollegeGameDayRocks! 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Rams are NOT the St. Louis Rams just like the Montréal Expos are NOT the Washington Nationals just like the Winnipeg Jets are NOT the Phoenix Coyotes . . . the Los Angeles Rams should have their own page. 49 years is a long time to be just a redirect page. --Andyhi18 (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, the current consensus of those participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League is to follow the NFL's naming conventions and official record books as a verifiable, reliable source: the Rams is one continuous franchise from 1936 in Cleveland to St. Louis today. The Houston Oilers franchise is now the Tennessee Titans. The Baltimore Colts are now the Indianapolis Colts. The Raiders, whether in LA or Oakland, are the Raiders. And so on.
And also, please do not argue here that "Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey and Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball do things differently, so the WikiProject NFL should do it too". (See also Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). There is in fact consensus that each sports-themed Wikiproject is free to do things differently, from that type of organization of team page, to what to put in infoboxes, to navigation boxes listing championship team rosters. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously different Wikiprojects do different things, HOWEVER, just redirecting 49 years of history is a disservice to those who want to know more about the golden age of the Rams franchise AND it is incredibly insulting to people from Southern California who gave their hearts to that team for almost fifty years, only to have it stomped on in Spring of 1995. --CASportsFan (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
If there is any consolation, I personally have had no objections to split long articles such as History of the Arizona Cardinals, History of the Indianapolis Colts, History of the Tennessee Titans, and (in this case) History of the St. Louis Rams. Unfortunately, like you, I have been in the minority. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
In any case, you should probably avoid emotional, passionate arguments like "redirecting X years of history is a disgrace and insult to Colts/Oilers/Rams fans in Baltimore/Houston/LA", since those types of reasons fall more into your own personal feelings instead of following a more verifiable or neutral point of view reference point. IMO, I think one of the main reasons that we consistently follow the official NFL records and history on all the 32 team articles here is that there is also very strong resistance against those who suggest in splitting the Cleveland Browns article into "Cleveland Browns (1946-1995)" and "Cleveland Browns (1999-present)". Or some in Baltimore who suggest that we merge "Baltimore Colts (1953–1983)" with Baltimore Ravens. And anything other than that official account may give the appearance of undue weight on a relatively minor viewpoint (but again that is my opinion when interpreting these discussions -- I blame the NFL and all their re-locations for this mess...) Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

They aren't the LA Rams... Yet...

The Rams have confirmed that they will be moving. Naturally, hype has built. People are getting confused by the words "will be". Teams don't just move in a day. Even the Baltimore Colts planned their move. All we know is that they won't be in St. Louis, but LA. Theoretically, they could call themselves the California Rams. Sure, it'd tick off the fanbase, but we shouldn't rename it until we know exactly what's happening AND that it has already occurred. Padsquad2010 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Padsquad2010 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed

Not sure if you have notices, but someone changed St. Louis to Los Angeles. I may not be a sports fan, but moving to Los Angeles was a consideration by St. Louis, and they have not yet moved. Donny (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just changed. Forget what I said. Donny (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Page suggestion

Hey, I know nothing of football and the protocol for their articles on Wikipedia, but why not do what we do with NHL teams and create a separate article for the relocated team? For example, the Atlanta Thrashers existed from 1999-2011. In 2011, they relocated to Winnipeg to become the Winnipeg Jets. Instead of converting the Atlanta article into the Winnipeg team, we have a new one for Winnipeg. Just a thought. Spilia4 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No. General consensus on the hockey articles is different than either the baseball articles or the football articles. For the baseball articles: Brooklyn Dodgers currently redirects to History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, St. Louis Browns currently redirects to History of the St. Louis Browns, Washington Senators (1901–60) redirects to History of the Washington Senators (1901–60), Philadelphia Athletics redirects to History of the Philadelphia Athletics, and Boston Braves (baseball) redirects to History of the Boston Braves. And here on the NFL articles it followed the same pattern as the baseball articles, Houston Oilers redirects to History of the Houston Oilers, Portsmouth Spartans redirects to History of the Portsmouth Spartans, and so on. Los Angeles Rams also historically redirected to History of the Los Angeles Rams. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

L.A. approval and past tense

Isn't it a bit premature to refer to the StL Rams in the past tense? I mean, the league's approval vote was only made public an hour ago. We don't yet know where they will be playing next season.--Chimino (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The NFL and ESPN have both confirmed that the Los Angeles Rams will play at the LA Coliseum next year. The St. Louis Rams are as good as dead. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
NFL Network has announced that they'll be in LA next season....key name NFL. CrashUnderride 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it is an alright option until the official LA name is unveiled. While most think they'll probably go back to "Los Angeles Rams," they could even be the "California Rams" or something. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

According to the NFL website, they'll be the Los Angeles Rams. http://www.nfl.com/teams/losangelesrams/roster?team=RAM JCW555 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Team History in sidebar

The team history entry in the sidebar is currently in error. It shows the St. Louis era as the "Los Angeles Rams (1995-present)". This should probably be fixed when it is updated to show the pending move back to LA.

Tanjental (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. It is also not designed to accept "TBD" in certain fields, and should instead be left blank. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

Please change the title to Los Angeles Rams, since the franchise has been relocated. Rjbc (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Not touching that with a 10 foot pole. You are correct, but there is an ongoing discussion about the potential move above. Wait until consensus it gathered --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Team color template

The Rams still have their 2000-present color scheme. Until we hear otherwise, we need to revert to that scheme and their current logo, minus any St. Louis-related script. Jgera5 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum

Has it been officially announced that they are playing at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, or is it all still just reports? Elisfkc (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is speculation. The team has at least five options and will likely make them compete against each other, even if the Coliseum is the preferred venue. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-la-temporary-stadium-20160113-story.html RickTheHamster (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
So, should the Coliseum be replaced with TBD until it is known? Elisfkc (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I changed it to just Los Angeles until it is announced. It probably won't take long. RickTheHamster (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

People: the other options are if the Chargers have relocation approved because USC had an agreement with the Goverment of Los Angeles County to now allow two teams play in the Colliseum, and UCLA and Los Angeles Dodgers had said no to NFL use of the Rose Bowl and the Dodgers Stadium respectively.

http://deadspin.com/reports-chargers-and-rams-will-relocate-to-la-share-s-1752593831

Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is Official.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Leo Bonilla:, until it's official, it shouldn't be here. @Ravens326: can you provide a source that confirms it officially? Otherwise, it shouldn't be there. Elisfkc (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Undo Page move?

Somebody just made an unauthorized and unnecessary page move to St. Louis Rams (2016-). Anyone know how to undo this? Richiekim (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Happened again. Elisfkc (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Elisfkc (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone moved the pages, I just copied and pasted back, but someone with Admin right may want to roll it back. @Damon Richmond:, please read above. Elisfkc (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I messed it up. Didn't realize I should have just hit revert. Elisfkc (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zzyzx11:, do you mind undoing my mistake? Elisfkc (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the move to Los Angeles official? How come it can't be moved? Damon Richmond (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Damon Richmond: because there is a discussion on how to move it, if it should be moved (or if a new page should be started), etc. Elisfkc (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

Can I change St. Louis (for the title and infobox and first paragraph) to Los Angeles? Some mad Rams fan changed it to St. Louis. Linuxrocks3234 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody change the title from St. Louis Rams to Los Angeles Rams? Linuxrocks3234 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Please don't make the same request repeatedly in rapid succession. One request will suffice. Wikipedia will be just fine until there is consensus (see above) on this change. If edit warring continues on this page, it may be full-protected. SQLQuery me! 02:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done since the team announced they are officially moving. Elisfkc (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First, the team must have an official presentation in Los Angels before any information source move on from calling the team St. Louis Rams and let's consider that even the 2015 NFL season is still in progress. Second, see above the discussion page because we're still having a brainstorm about what to do and how to edit the different pages related to the Rams.

Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no emergency right now that requires an immediate change. Let's let the community decide how they would like to handle this transition, and once there is consensus it should be acted on. Continuing to edit war is not going to be productive. SQLQuery me! 02:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

Change the main title from St.Louis Rams to Los Angeles Rams RubinWiki (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please scroll up. There is ongoing discussion. A move like that would also require consensus --allthefoxes (Talk) 08:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles

It has come to my attention that past midnight, the St. Louis Rams may become the Los Angeles Rams. How will we handle this transition? Buffaboy talk 23:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suspect that we'd have to get official word from the Rams themselves as to when they become the L.A. Rams again. CrashUnderride 01:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It's actually on their front page. They want to rub it in for STL. Buffaboy talk 04:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/687086537662664704 Via tweet from Adam Schefter, it's official. Los Angeles Rams. JCW555 (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the change has offically occured yet (and may just have been announced) for instance the players selected to play in the Pro Bowl are still listed as members of the St. Louis Rams and not the Los Angeles Rams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00C:6A1A:0:69:46B5:AE01 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The NFL has also confirmed the name change: http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/25994/move-still-to-come-but-team-is-officially-the-los-angeles-rams . Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Since it's been confirmed by the NFL that the team is now officially the Los Angeles Rams even though they are still in St Louis at the moment, I think it's safe to rename the page. BryceJorgensen (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but for article size concerns, it's probably better to WP:SPLIT the franchise details between their time in Los Angeles, and their time in St. Louis. For example, see Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals from baseball, Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes from hockey, and Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder from basketball. Canuck89 (have words with me) 07:36, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

With the Rams set to move and a verdict appearing to be rendered, it should be considered that this article be deleted and merged with History of the St. Louis Rams--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia we cannot delete the page history, especially if we are moving/merging content around to other pages. This includes my original proposal to rename this main overview page of the entire franchise to the Los Angeles Rams spot. The page history also needs to be kept because this was the original base page before content from here was split to create the separate History of the St. Louis Rams and History of the Los Angeles Rams articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Info box

Somebody changed "Los Angeles Rams", which had a link to a reliable source for that name attached to it, back to "St. Louis Rams" in the info box, with the stated reason "take it to talk page" and later "see talk page". The editor(s) who did this did not actually write anything in the talk page, so I have no idea what their reason for reversing the edit was. If it's about the move discussion, the move discussion has nothing to do with the info box. Can someone convince me not to reverse this deletion of a sourced edit with no rationale or contrary source given? Miraculouschaos (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

They are officially the Los Angeles Rams

The name change is official, its stupid to keep the name as the St. Louis Rams

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said Thursday the team officially became the Los Angeles Rams on Tuesday evening in Houston, when league owners approved the relocation to Southern California. Although the team hasn't altered its name on social media or its website, that will be coming soon. The same is true here on ESPN.com, where the Rams will henceforth be referred to as the Los Angeles Rams.[1]
Confirmed here, here and here. Tom Danson (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

New domain name?

What is their new domain name now that they are the Los Angeles Rams again? The current one doesn't work.2605:E000:AA14:FA00:5895:8A9C:9F0C:1A5E (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, they aren't technicaly the "Los Angeles" Rams, but they will be playing in LA. I think it should wait until they officially unveil the LA Rams identity.Padsquad2010 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They are the Los Angeles Rams. They are the same Los Angeles Rams that existed for almost 50 years during the last century. The LA Rams changing their name is extremely unlikely. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the domain name is still stlouisrams.com . Elisfkc (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
So is there a possibilty that they will still be called "St. Louis Rams" even after they are moved to Los Angeles? 71.218.150.215 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Technically they could, but not realistically. They are delaying the name change until the postseason finishes is my guess. Padsquad2010 (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
They are now officially the Los Angeles Rams. ( http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/25994/move-still-to-come-but-team-is-officially-the-los-angeles-rams ) I put this source for that fact in the article, but whoever changed the name back to St Louis deleted it. Miraculouschaos (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@Miraculouschaos: It was not deleted, it was moved as placing a reference in the name parameter of the infobox breaks the function of the parameter. It is currently listed next to Los Angeles Rams (196–1994, 2016–future). Yosemiter (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

press conference in inglewood Los Angeles Rams on logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.72.188 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

While the URL for their official website hasn't been updated yet, the header and new logo both clearly say Los Angeles Rams. I don't see why we are continuing to wait to move this page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Their new domain is therams (dot) com. It currently mirrors the stlouisrams (dot) com site, which is still what is linked on the NFL's site at the moment. Official Site of the Los Angeles Rams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playhouse76 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Change to Los Angeles Rams immediately (no discussion needed)

There should not even be a discussion here. It's not a matter of opinion of people who support a move or not. It is a matter of facts. Today, the Rams unveiled a new logo, a new website and new social media accounts, all which say Los Angeles Rams. They are officially no longer the St. Louis Rams, and even NFL.com recognizes them as the Los Angeles Rams officially now. So an admin with half a brain, please move this, and end the stupid and unnecessary discussions on this talk page, whether it should be moved or not. It's official now, just move it, and don't worry about what others may think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feefeefee3 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


they are the Los Angeles Rams now need to update this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.72.188 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lift Protection

The Press Conference, Conversion of Social Media, and other events are enough to end the protection from article movements. Its time the community made a decision, or someone else will.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Support The wordmark confirmed it. Padsquad2010 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Team Name Change

The team held a press conference at The Forum in Inglewood on January 15, 2016, to officially announce its return to Los Angeles to start play in the 2016 season, and that it has officially changed its identity to the Los Angeles Rams. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000623189/article/rams-unveil-new-logo-during-la-news-conference

The National Football League & the now defunct St. Louis Rams have officially changed the name of the team to the Los Angeles Rams. I am very close to just taking the most recent page and creating a new page with the proper title of the Los Angeles Rams, please resolve this growing debate ASAP. Obinna Onyemaobi (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't do a manual cut and paste move, which will only cause more problems. Admins have been contacted, and hopefully will make a proper move soon. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the main article name and associated talk page should hopefully be changed soon to the Los Angeles Rams. The team's new website URL is found here. The team's Facebook and Twitter accounts state the official name of the club as Los Angeles Rams. The protection level preventing the article and talk page name from being changed should be removed as soon as possible, in order to facilitate the renaming of both pages, IMO. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiki page should already be titled Los Angeles Rams by now, and St. Louis Rams should be a redirect. All voted in, St Louis Rams webpage already says Los Angeles Rams, all they have to do to secure the correct domains is take care of the cyber squatters. It's a forgone conclusion that they will be playing in LA in 2016. (Bes2224 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC))

Is any admin online?!! The team name has changed & there is actually evidence that the St. Louis Rams are now a defunct team. Obinna Onyemaobi (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, admins were contracted, and one did make the move after looking into the move request. We all appreciate it, as know this was a contentious issue. - BilCat (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

They haven't moved yet!!!!

I'm extremely frustrated by what I perceive to be a lack of understanding of how the process works. The league voted 30-2 to ALLOW the Rams to move. They don't HAVE to move. Until they move, I believe they should still be referred to as in St. Louis, while still acknowledging that they are 99% certain to be going to LA. Lawsuits could still come. There's an unlikely scenario that they reach an agreement with St. Louis. Maybe they can't move in in time. A slew of things could stop the move from occurring, although they will likely not be an issue. Can someone please explain to me how a team that is headquartered in St. Louis, operating out of St. Louis, that only has a stadium agreement in St. Louis, can be considered an LA team already? I'm trying not to get into an edit war here, but this is simply wrong to me, and I don't see any logical explanation other than everyone else is wrong. We're reading the same sources and drawing vastly different conclusions. Padsquad2010 (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree but unfortunately there are some people who want to do this before its official.--JOJ Hutton 02:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Technically speaking, they don't have a stadium agreement in St. Louis. They'd be on a year to year lease now. But that's besides the point. Elisfkc (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I want to confirm what you just said without sounding redundant. I don't know how. 98.166.144.129 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
That was me above Padsquad2010 (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
They Moved, Stan Kroenke spoke, its over, Its Not Your Fault.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Its Not Your Fault.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
That's it, work your way through the stages of grief. Up next: anger. Knut~enwiki (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Mmmmmm????
https://twitter.com/LAMayorsOffice/status/687093684664307712/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Leo Bonilla (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah and there's this http://www.stlouisrams.com/s/30854/409?itemUri=330538947/215510144101182111811114381215 MarcusPearl95 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Rams-to-Return-to-Los-Angeles/802b4e16-671e-4864-97b6-943115cdc4cf Here's a better link.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Look, I'm not a Rams fan, but the team has only announced that they will move. Not that they have. Everyone is misunderstanding how the system works. The Rams still refer to themselves as St. Louis, they just won't be for long. Los Angeles, in my mind, should be regarded in the future tense. When the Expos announced they would move to DC in September '04, it wasn't until December or so that they actually moved. We don't even know if they will be called the LA Rams. Padsquad2010 (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
They'll be called the LA Rams, Theres no doubt about that.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Why wouldn't they be called the LA Rams? ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
If the ownership decided to be idiots to their LA fanbase. Padsquad2010 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the move has officially kicked in yet, as I mentioned in a section above, for example the players that were selected to play in the Pro Bowl are still listed as members of the St. Louis Rams and not the Los Angeles Rams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:10BA:85A0:7B7F:B955 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
They've just held an official press conference to introduce themselves to LA as the Los Angeles Rams, have an updated logo, have created an official site, and have rebranded the St. Louis Rams site to say Los Angeles Rams. They have elected to move. Rams unveil new logo during L.A. news conference Playhouse76 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter that the offices are still based in St. Louis, this team is the Los Angeles Rams effective this past Tuesday, Janurary 12, 2016. This page has been outdated due to people managing it and being ignorant of the fact that the team is already the Los Angeles Rams. The name needs to be changed immediately and hopefully next time people will do their research and change it as soon as possible because it's ridiculous that the name is incorrect on here since people refuse to do the research. Here is the link for those people refusing to update this page. The team's official twitter is also Los Angeles Rams already. http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/25994/move-still-to-come-but-team-is-officially-the-los-angeles-rams https://twitter.com/RamsNFL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.122.196 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Nah i'm enjoying watching Wikipedia wallow behind the rest of the world because of some dire need of a technicality. So if you moved most of your boxed belongings to your new house, do you still tell people you live in the old one because you haven't made the trip to pick up your couch yet? I mean, what are they waiting for at this point, the Draft? 108.250.204.26 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The degree of pedantry in this place is outrageous. Knut~enwiki (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, editors here like to get things right, and they prefer reliable evidence, not a blog where anyone can write what he likes. Isn't there a newspaper article you can cite for the change? Maproom (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I know this is an after the fact comment, but are you dense? Did you not see the reference the post two above yours? This is exactly the kind of bureaucratic silliness I'm talking about. The sources are legion. It's not up to us to disprove your ignorance. oknazevad (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time to switch the article over now

They made the announcement official today, the St. Louis Rams Facebook page is gone, etc. We have to let go! Buffaboy talk 23:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Concur with immediate move. It's official. - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2016

The Rams are the second NFL franchise to return to a city they had previously played in, the first being the Raiders who had left Los Angeles along with the Rams in 1995. The Rams are the first major league sports team to relocate since 2011, when the Atlanta Thrashers left Atlanta and became the Winnipeg Jets, which, similar to St. Louis, was the second time Atlanta lost a sports team in that league (NHL).

The Rams are the second NFL franchise to return to a city they had previously played in, the first being the Raiders who had left Los Angeles along with the Rams in 1995. The Rams are the first major league sports team to relocate since 2012, when the New Jersey Nets left the city of Newark and became the Brooklyn Nets.

I guess the Nets relocating from Newark, NJ to Brooklyn, NY in 2012 wasn't far enough for some people... DWYCK (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it isn't. It's the same media market. Heck, they have the exact same beat reporters from the local papers, the same television and radio deals, the same just about everything, except they are playing in a different building in the same area. (And they were only in the Prudential Center for two seasons anyway.) The distance between AT&T Stadium and Texas Stadium was greater than the distance between the arenas in Newark and Brooklyn. If the Cowboys aren't considered to have moved (and they shouldn't be), the the Nets aren't either. oknazevad (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
driving distance, they're both about 17.5 miles. But when the Nets moved, they did cross a state line. Metropod (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Still the same media market in both cases, regardless. I could have used the Pistons as my example; The Palace at Auburn Hills is 33 miles from Joe Louis Arena. The point remains that it's all the New York metro area, and not half way across the continent. oknazevad (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:

  • Moved St. Louis Rams and List of St. Louis Rams seasons on 06:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC) per below.[2]
  • Procedural close/withdrawal regarding History of the St. Louis Rams and History of the Los Angeles Rams. After examining the page histories, it appears there already has been various splits and merges between those two pages and the main Rams page here for the past several years -- enough that they qualify as "parallel versions". And the parallel editing seems to have continued during the past week while this RM discussion was in progress. As such, they no longer qualify as candidates for a history merge, or under the scope of WP:RM and page moves. The talk pages are already tagged as {{Subarticle}}, and I already have repaired insufficient attribution per WP:RIA. Any further discussions should thus fall under either merger and page splitting proposals.

Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

– As someone who has admin permission, I'm prepared to move this and all sub pages to Los Angeles Rams, based on the relocation announcement by the NFL. I assume this would be an uncontroversial WP:SNOW based on previous cases and precedent involving team relocations within the big 4 major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada. The issue I have is what to do with History of the Los Angeles Rams (which only details the team's history in LA from 1946 to 1994) and History of the St. Louis Rams (which provides an overview for the team's entire history from its days in Cleveland). I think the latter overview article should be moved into the former, leaving the History of the St. Louis Rams spot to be rewritten to just focus on the team's time in STL. Furthermore, the current History of the Los Angeles Rams should probably be moved to History of the Los Angeles Rams (1946–1994) as a detailed article for just the first era in LA. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin note: St. Louis Rams and List of St. Louis Rams seasons have been moved per my 06:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC) note below.[3]—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. I support it. CrashUnderride 03:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I get it, but it may be worth waiting just a short time more. If we want to be proper and official about all this, then I oppose, but only for the time being. The NFL owners have voted, but I don't know that the Rams have yet made any official moves, like legally reincorporating under a new name. Until such a thing happens, the name of the company would still be "St. Louis Rams." Again, we want to be proper. Rowsdower45 (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Requested move discussions such as this one usually take seven days (but could take longer if neceesary). I'm not sure what a "short time more" would entail. I was not expecting a definite consensus about what to do with these articles overnight. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I can understand that the company has not legally changed their name of the organization, but the NFL seems to regard the team officially as the Los Angeles Rams. --204.106.251.214 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That link exists because the NFL still has historical data on their website for the old LA Rams. It's a redirect link to the regular team page, which is still designated as St. Louis (note the "STL" in the hyperlink).Rowsdower45 (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Rams-to-Return-to-Los-Angeles/802b4e16-671e-4864-97b6-943115cdc4cf The Rams official website has also confirmed the move. JCW555 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Official? Look at their website. They are back to LA. Therefore, I personally see no problem with it moving now. CrashUnderride 03:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the website. It's called "StLouisRams.com." Rowsdower45 (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.nfl.com/teams/losangelesrams/roster?team=RAM NFL has confirmed the name change to Los Angeles Rams on their website.
As I said above, that's a redirect link for historical info on the Rams elsewhere on NFL.com. Look at this page, for instance. That's the Rams' 1987 schedule and results, where they're designated as "RAM" because they were in LA. The Rams' official page still says "St. Louis" and the hyperlink still ends in STL. All hyperlinks in the NFL.com article end in STL and direct to a page titled "St. Louis Rams." Rowsdower45 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I support you making the go ahead and to do it. The reason is because the NFL has already listed them now as the Los Angeles Rams, and the St. Louis Rams official website has confirmed its a done deal. I am not good at source linking but here's my sources [1][2][3]Dr. Pizza (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As I originally stated, I get that moving STL Rams to LA Rams would eventually be non-controversial, once it becomes official. Could someone address my thoughts about what to do with those history articles? Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait a bit / Conditional Oppose on moving the team, Oppose on moving the history subarticles at least for now. Notably, it's not clear if the new team will be seen as a seamless continuation or as a "new team". It is at least possible this will be a situation similar to the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals where the "St. Louis Rams" article stays where it is, and a new article is created for "Los Angeles Rams"; while I suspect that won't happen, it'll be easier to tell in a week or so. For the "History" pages, it seems more reasonable to keep them where they are; "History of the St. Louis Rams" will cover 1994-2016, and "History of the Los Angeles Rams" will cover both 1946-1994 & 2016-???. (You can see something similar with, say, History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, which covers only the time they were in Brooklyn, not LA.) SnowFire (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose until there is more concrete information, like a sources saying the team has a specific place to play in LA in the coming season, that they will be calling themselves the LA Rams, etc. Current reports are vague about the venue for the 16 season, and they could change their name (see Baltimore Ravens), or pick another geography (California Rams? who knows) Fitnr 03:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.nfl.com/teams/losangelesrams/roster?team=RAM The NFL website lists the team under "Los Angeles Rams" and (the former) St. Louis Rams website says that the team is moving to LA and will play there for the 2016 NFL season. http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Rams-to-Return-to-Los-Angeles/802b4e16-671e-4864-97b6-943115cdc4cf.
A listing on the NFL page is a good start, but I don't think they should rightfully described as the LA Rams if they don't have a solid deal to play somewhere in LA in the fall. It's totally possible (although unlikely) that they get shut out of the Rose Bowl and other stadiums and end up playing in St Louis for one more season. Fitnr 17:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Our personal opinions on when they really become the LA Rams doesn't matter; reliable sources are already calling them the LA Rams, as is the NFL and the team itself. Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, that's a redirect link for historical info on the Rams elsewhere on NFL.com. Look at this page, for instance. That's the Rams' 1987 schedule and results, where they're designated as "RAM" because they were in LA. The Rams' official page still says "St. Louis" and the hyperlink still ends in STL. All hyperlinks in the NFL.com article end in STL and direct to a page titled "St. Louis Rams." Rowsdower45 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This makes sense. The two teams have different histories, the LA Rams and the St. Louis Rams are two completely different teams. I also support Indianapolis Colts and Baltimore Colts becoming two different articles. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
They are the EXACT same teams. That's like saying the Oakland Raiders and the LA Raiders are two different teams. The Indianapolis Colts and Baltimore Colts are the same team also!!! CrashUnderride 04:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
You are confusing the words "franchise" and "team". The Oakland Raiders and the LA Raiders were the same team as they completely retained all of the history of the team, while retaining its fan base in its entirety. The former Baltimore Colts players and fans completely disowbed the Colts franchise after the move to Indianapolis. The Indianapolis Colts never recognized the achievements of the Baltimore Colts, nor did they retire any of the great Baltimore Colts' player's jerseys. Baltimore Colts fans never rooted for the Indianapolis Colts. The LA Rams fans were never St. Louis Rams fans and vice versa. The LA Rams are unlikely to openly celebrate the achievements of the St. Louis Rams, just as the St. Louis Rams did not honor the achievements of the LA Rams. Famous LA Rams players like Deacon Jones and Merlin Olsen saw the St. Louis Rams and LA Rams as being two completely different teams with seperate histories and sperate fan bases, despite being the same franchise. It makes no sense to confuse readers by conflating the St. Louis Rams with the LA Rams. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It makes no sense to deny the existence of a team that existed for over a decade: it warrants its own article. And, in fact, the Baltimore Colts have a separate article: History of the Baltimore Colts, as do the St. Louis Cardinals: History of the St. Louis Cardinals (NFL). It's possible that there should be a History of the St. Louis Rams article, rather than a separate St. Louis Rams article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Meh – this issue is complicated, but there shouldn't be a "quick" move: this needs more discussion to figure out exactly how to handle it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There are already separate pages for the histories of the LA Rams and the St. Louis Rams, so your proposal would involve deleting a page. The Oakland Raiders and LA Raiders retained their history, fan base and loyalty of their former players in their entirety. St. Louis Rams fans aren't suddenly going to become LA Rams fans, just as old LA Rams fans didn't become St. Louis Rams fans. The old LA Rams players never recognized them as being the same teams. Deacon Jones saw the LA Rams and St. Louis Rams as being completely separate teams. There is a difference between the words "team" and "franchise". ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no reason for there to be two history pages for the LA Rams. There should be one page for the St. Louis Rams and one for the LA Rams. ParkH.Davis (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Give it some time. We normally go by common usage, not by crystal ball, futures, predictions, official proclamations, etc. Why the rush? And consider the separate page idea. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
People are going to be flooding this page for information. THis is basically a news event and we should treat it like so. Swordman97 talk to me 19:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Baltimore Ravens were an expansion team that inherited the then defunct Cleveland Browns assets. The Ravens and the Browns are two different franchises with zero ties to each other. It would be more appropriate to treat the Ravens as a continuation of the Baltimore Colts as opposed to a continuation of the Cleveland Browns. There is a difference between "team" and "franchise". ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the history is split by city, then why not also a separate page of History of the Cleveland Rams? Same logic applies. It is one team having played in three different cities, with a single history. Players, coaches, personnel, colors, logo all moved with the team. If anything, the existing pages should be merged.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    There already is a History of the Cleveland Rams article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. In the case of the Browns, doesn't the NFL consider the "new" Cleveland team to have "adopted" the old team's records? In that case, split pages are appropriate. Here, though, it's one team bouncing back and forth between cities, so it should have one page. But, it shouldn't be moved until the team actually moves to LA. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It should be handled in the same matter as the pages involving the Nationals, Thunder, Jets, and any other team that has moved in the last 10 Years. What I can say is there should be a History of the Los Angeles Rams (1946-1994) page to draw a distinction between what we have now and what we had during those years.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    10 years is an arbitrary measure. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Most people would want to find the main page about the franchise at Los Angeles Rams pretty soon. The pages about the history could be handled in different ways. But the history about the St. Louis years should probably be at History of the St. Louis Rams, and if there still should be an article about the entire history of the franchise it should probably move to History of the Los Angeles Rams. Boivie (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We need to wait until it's official that the name will be Los Angeles Rams. We can't assume anything. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 10:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for moving St. Louis Rams to Los Angeles Rams. St. Louis media, including the Post-Dispatch, is reporting that the Rams are gone. The team has their notification announcement on their official site. (They can't switch sites to losangelesrams.com or larams.com yet as there are squatters on those domains.) Goodell referred to the team as the Los Angeles Rams while making the official announcement at his media address. There's also the infamous website work at NFL.com where they've quietly copied the Rams info (roster, stats, coaches, etc.) over to the Los Angeles Rams in anticipation of an official switch on the site. And the NFL Network has referred to the team as the Los Angeles Rams during their reporting. I think there is plenty enough to make the decision on moving the article. Playhouse76 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving the histories as suggested. There should remain two articles: History of the Los Angeles Rams and History of the St. Louis Rams. The LA Rams history from 2016 on can be added to the Los Angeles history article, as well as a brief St. Louis heading that directs people to the St. Louis history article. That matches what is done for other teams. If needed, History of the St. Louis Rams can move to History of the St. Louis Rams (1995-2015). Playhouse76 (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving the histories. They should be their own separate articles, one covering the LA Rams and the other covering their time in St. Louis. Grand Armor (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment to admins. Apparently many editors here seem to be not familiar with the Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and the attribution process. My basic goal in my proposal to move History of the St. Louis Rams to History of the Los Angeles Rams is to preserve the page history of the primary article that currently provides an overview for the team's entire history from its days in Cleveland. Then the pages can be restructured as to whatever people see fit, and, as a stated above, the History of the St. Louis Rams spot can be converted from a resulting redirect to a new article that just focuses on the team's time in St. Louis. Otherwise, there is likely going to be lots of copying back and forth between the two pages without the proper attribution. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There are already two seperate history pages. There is no need for any articles to be merged. ParkH.Davis (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - prior to this move, the history page contained all the history including previous names. I see no reason why this should change. If any subsection of that history is important enough and/or has enough info to warrant being split from that article then that can be done later - but the name of the main History article should change. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There already two separate articles for the histories of the St. Louis Rams and the LA Rams. ParkH.Davis (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
True - but my point is that before st louis moved the main history page (currently titled st louis) had all the history - including time in Cleveland and LA. Why should this change just because they've moved again? There's no logic to that. In 20 years time [when this relocation is as far away from now as 2015 was from the move from LA] would you still say that the main history article shouldn't move? The main History article should now be titled 'LA rams' - it should take over from the current one - and it should have all the history (including clveland and st louis) - then other pages can delve into more detail about sub parts of that history. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Wikipedia rules, and standard usage, make me think that a move is the best option. It's the same team. The name and location changed. That's it. Keeping the old edit history is important too. The history page could be split, but I'm not sure why they're split already anyway. Wilsonbiggs 13:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - It's the same team, you don't have a separate history page for each location on other teams. Move everything to LA Rams. 159.140.254.107 (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There are many pages in which separate teams from the same franchise has separate history pages. Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals from baseball, Baltimore Colts and Indianapolis Colts from football, Brooklyn Dodgers and Los Angeles Dodgers from baseball, Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder from basketball, and Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes from hockey. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There should be two different history pages, as they are two different teams, despite being the same franchise. There is a difference between the words "team" and "franchise". ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • More like a distinction without a difference, although I noticed that you're changing all the references to "team" in the article to "franchise". SixFourThree (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree
      • There is a difference though, the words "team" and "franchise" refer to different entities. I have only changed where it is appropriate for there to be change. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Whether you call it "franchise" or "team", they are one continuous entity. The St. Louis Rams had a banner celebrating the 1951 NFL Championship won by the Los Angeles Rams, and another celebrating Deacon Jones, who played for the LA Rams and not the St. Louis Rams. In LA the team will no doubt hang the banner celebrating the win in Super Bowl XXXIV by the St. Louis Rams. There is one continuous history for the team/franchise, there are simply eras where they played in different cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.56.187 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whatever is decided here should also be the same for other NFL teams in similar scenarios (Baltimore for the Colts, Chicago & St. Louis for the Cardinals, Los Angeles for the Raiders and Chargers, Boston for the Patriots, etc.) Tom Danson (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Raiders and Patriots are different from the other cases which you cited as they are widely seen as being continuous teams with continuous fan bases and continuous histories. The Baltimore Colts and the Indianapolis Colts, on the other hand, are widely seen as being different teams with different fan bases and different histories despite the fact they are technically the same franchise. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Passionately Support - I agree with Zzyzx11. To delay would only be pushing off the inevitable. The team is now in LA. End of Story. Making separate pages for the histories of the first LA Rams and the St Louis team seems to be a very rational way to solve the issues here. The only comment I would make would be to keep the History of the St. Louis Rams page as is, rename the original History of the Los Angeles Rams page as suggested, and the new reincarnation deosn't really need a history page for a while, as whatever happens in the near future will be in the history section of the team page.Jdavi333 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Why not just keep as it is right now? There is no need to rename or move any of the history pages. There is already one for the St. Louis Rams and one for the Los Angeles Rams. The current LA Rams are the exact same team as the old LA Rams, it would make no sense for there to be two history pages for one team. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Why not just improve upon the pages that already exist? There is no reason to merge the history pages. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
You said it above: "it would make no sense for there to be two history pages for one team". The Rams are the Rams are the Rams - all one team. One complete article to cover its entire history.
You're confusing the word "team" with the word "franchise". The LA Rams and the St. Louis Rams are separate teams just like the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals from baseball, Baltimore Colts and Indianapolis Colts from football, Brooklyn Dodgers and Los Angeles Dodgers from baseball, Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder from basketball, and Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes from hockey. There is precedent for there being two different history pages for relocated North American sports franchises. There's no reason to delete an article which currently exists when simply improving upon it from its current state would be far more preferable. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support As long as there's some way to differentiate between the Los Angeles Rams and the St. Louis Rams, I'm all for it. I echo ParkH.Davis (talk)'s sentiments. The move is official; they are now the Los Angeles Rams. I believe it's time to reflect that fact, and to create separate articles differentiating between the team's history in St. Louis and Los Angeles. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The Rams aren't officially the St. Louis Rams yet. St. Louis and LA should have two history pages, but I think the St. Louis Rams article should eventually be moved once the naming and stadium, etc. become official. Padsquad2010 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above, for now. Until the official website said "Los Angeles Rams," which it will in time, ours should remain unchanged. Just the two cents of a grizzled, mostly-retired Wiki-man. ;) -- E. Brown
  • Support-Support-Oppose. Yes, the main page should be moved - though perhaps waiting till at least after the 2015 season is over would make sense - and yes, there should be a History of the St. Louis Rams page. There is, IMO, no reason for two LA Rams history pages; have a single page for History of the Los Angeles Rams, and link to the STL Rams history page (with a brief overview of the move etc) for the period 1995-2015. This would create separation whilst retaining the symbiotic link between the two "teams" of the franchise. Krytenia (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Rams-to-Return-to-Los-Angeles/802b4e16-671e-4864-97b6-943115cdc4cf
  2. ^ http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-nfl-los-angeles-rams-20160112-story.html
  3. ^ http://www.nfl.com/teams/losangelesrams/roster?team=RAM
  • Support Does this count?

http://www.lamayor.org/larams

https://twitter.com/LAMayorsOffice/status/687093684664307712/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Leo Bonilla (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support with either one history page for all the teams, or three history pages, as suggested by Ejgreen77. "There should be three separate history pages here, History of the Cleveland Rams, History of the Los Angeles Rams, and History of the St. Louis Rams." Tcpekin 19:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support three different team histories. Wait for start of new league year for move of this page to Los Angeles Rams? Though that isn't until March. If they finalize a stadium, that would also be a good time. Patken4 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The History of the St. Louis Rams page is being built, and is expected to be given an overhaul by myself and other editors. It is recommended that this page be moved if that is the case. But it should remain untouched until after Super Bowl 50--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support move to Los Angeles Rams with one history page in the format proposed by User:UCO2009bluejay. As reported by ESPN within the last hour [4], the team name is now officially the Los Angeles Rams, which ought to lay this discussion to rest. The precedent set by teams like the Chicago/StL/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals to have a comprehensive consolidated history page at the current team name and to have the same main article for the current team as for the Chicago Cardinals is the only choice that makes sense IMO, considering that it is still the same team and officially has the same history (I have no strong opinion on what we should do/have done with the Browns' history, but that case is not directly comparable to this one unless something dramatic changes in St Louis in the years to come).  — TORTOISEWRATH 00:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Note WP:SPLIT. We should endeavor to make Wikipedia's articles as comprehensive as possible (yet not too large). By having separate pages for their times in St. Louis and Los Angeles, it will help alleviate size concerns. Also, IMO, it's confusing for a reader looking for info on the St. Louis Rams to end up at a page detailing the history of the Los Angeles Rams. Canuck89 (what's up?) 00:50, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
Support WP:SPLIT - This is exactly why in the Ice Hockey wikiproject we create new page for each new relocation and keep the old for historical reference. It prevent edits warring and make more concise specific articles with the proper name of what is being searched for (see that Minnesota North Stars is an entirely separate article from Dallas Stars despite it being the same franchise. Yosemiter (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
As long as there's some kind of WP:SPLIT, things should be okay. For article size concerns, it's probably better to have one page focus on the franchise's time in Los Angeles, while another page focuses on the franchise's time in St. Louis. For example, see Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals from baseball, Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes from hockey, and Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder from basketball. Canuck89 (what's up?) 07:39, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now At the moment the Rams have this strange status of announcing that they'll exist in another city for next season, but in actuality still being on the ground in St. Louis. I think we should wait to move the page until the team moves its headquarters to Los Angeles (a la Bob Irsay and his Mayflower trucks in 1984), changes its legal name, updates its own official website, and so forth. The NFL League Year changes in March, and by then the Rams should be established in L.A. Perhaps that would be a better time to move the article. --Tocino 08:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support without question. LCrowter (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The franchise is now the Los Angeles Rams (again). That has been confirmed by the commissioner, the owners and others, even if they haven't finished packing up the trucks yet. As for the history articles, that's a little tougher, but it seems to me that History of the Los Angeles Rams should be made into an overview article covering the whole history briefly, while the current overview at History of the St. Louis Rams should be edited down to cover the franchise's time in that city alone, to go along with the article at History of the Cleveland Rams on their time in that city, while the current contents of History of the Los Angeles Rams be moved over to History of the Los Angeles Rams (1946–1994), or maybe even split into smaller time periods is done with the articles in the series History of the New York Giants. That would be the best way to fulfill the idea behind WP:SUMMARY. But regardless of the way the history articles are broken down, this main article needs to be moved, as the move has been approved, and the owner, league, reliable sources and everything (except the yet to be updated irks, which apparently have squatting issues) all are already using Los Angeles Rams. oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with condition: The change to Los Angeles Rams is imminent, inevitable, and obvious. However, it may be prudent to keep the page title protected until one of the following two milestones. 1) The actual club relocates its headquarters to L.A., or 2) the beginning of the NFL League Year (a.k.a., 2016 NFL fiscal year), which falls on March 15, 2016. The St. Louis Rams are a product of the 2015 season, and the 2015 season does not end formally until March 14, 2016. The Los Angeles Rams are a product of the 2016 NFL season, which formally begins on March 15, 2016. As for history pages, I support as mentioned above, the use of History of the St. Louis Rams to cover the only the STL years (1995-2015). They are the same franchise, and same team, but with different cities, have different, distinct eras. It's not quite as "drastic" a change as the Oilers moving to Tennesssee and becoming the Titans, and not at all the same as the Art Modell franchise formerly known as the Browns moving to Baltimore and becoming the Ravens. But it is a distinction with a difference. Doctorindy↔Talk 18:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support of moving this article to Los Angeles Rams. It's pretty open and shut since the team, the league, and the media are all calling them the Los Angeles Rams now. Claiming that the name is "really" still St. Louis Rams because they haven't physically moved, or the league year hasn't started yet, or any other reason not based on the primary sources, sounds like original research. We're supposed to follow the primary sources on these matters, period. Miraculouschaos (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: This discussion is becoming a mess. There seem to be two separate issues being voted on: what to do with the two already existing "History of ..." articles, and whether to move the article about the team itself. It seems more reasonable to discuss the history articles on their talk pages rather than here, so that we can tell what "support" and "oppose" actually refer to. Miraculouschaos (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's official from the team's perspective. Los Angeles Rams website Los Angeles Rams verified twitter account LMUpepbander (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Heading for ease of editing

@71.218.150.215: and @Miraculouschaos: That notion is incorrect because this move request comprises several moves in one discussion that is why each of them is discussed here. It is a blanket move discussion.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
But there's really no reason for it to be. None of the other articles are titled Los Angeles Rams; that is simply a redirect to this article at this time. As the redirect and this article are the only ones directly affected by that part of the move, and is the one that is most critical (because frankly Wikipedia is looking pretty stupid right now keeping it at the former title because of beuraucratic nonsense), the move discussions/discussions on scope of the other articles should be split off, as they are not time sensitive and are interfering with a simple case of factual accuracy. Again, the team is the Los Angeles Rams, not the St. Louis Rams, so why the bloody hell is the article still at the wrong title? oknazevad (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I concur. Per IAR, the bureaucracy needs to be bypassed in this situation, and the related issues can be settled later. However, trying finding an admin who is willing to be bold has led some to be accused of admin shopping. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wondering why Wikipedia is full of idiots Why can't anyone on Wikipedia use some common sense and just move the page already. It is clearly and obviously official at this point. When Bruce Jenner became Caitlyn Jenner, the page was changed immediately. I really can't understand the delay. Just move it already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.31.7 (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
If you're going to edit here, please at least attempt to be civil. There is no life-and-death emergency that requires action right this second. SQLQuery me! 06:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sportslogos.net has a different Rams head logo than either of the one displayed on both LA Rams and History of the St. Louis Rams. So which shade of gold is it? SportsLogos.net is displaying the same darker logo for both STL Rams and LA Rams. [5] [6] Mark Schierbecker (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The darker gold is color-corrected to Pantone Digital Standards. They more accurately reflect the actual Pantone swatches used by the team. SixFourThree (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree

Chip Rosenbloom?

Chip Rosenbloom is listed in several places as the team chairman, but the team's webpage doesn't indicate that.[7] I'm going to remove him. SixFourThree (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree

Los Angeles Rams

In the Los Angeles Rams page, under the subsection '2016: Return to Los Angeles" it says that Oakland is the only other team to return to a city from which they originally came (Rams went from LA to St. Louis and then back to LA & the Raiders went from Oakland to LA and then back to Oakland)...however, the Chargers actually left LA in 1960 and went to San Diego from 1961-2016, and they're back in LA now. I wanted to edit the page but there's no "edit" tab so I thought maybe someone on here could make the change for me,

References: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Chargers - http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/chargers/2017/01/12/chargers-los-angeles-move-san-diego-relocation/96505836/

Sincerely yours, -Sean Shimamoto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.239.144.212 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

New Logo, New Jersey

The Los Angeles Rams modified their logo/woodmark by removing all of the gold color from them. Also, the Rams have just altered their uniform. Updates to the images for both should be made. MEIAI500 (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Los Angeles Rams. 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:

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) 03:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Los Angeles Rams. 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:

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) 11:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit requests

This is my first ever edit request, please forgive any errors in formatting! Constructive criticism on how to make my next one would be appreciated!

It is written in...

2017: Resurgence and first NFC West title since 2003 that... “The games were highlighted by resurgences of Jared Goff and Todd Gurley.

This is inaccurate as indeed Gurley was resurging Goff had never surged having a very disappointing rookie season. It would be much more accurate as to describe 2017 as his “emergence”.

Maybe being pedantic here but accuracy should matter.

As far as the missed interference in the title game against the Saints there should also be mentioned the two blatant facemask penalties committed by the Saints on the Rams. No one in the media seems to remember when the Rams got jobbed.

Rams, Saints both benefited from blown calls by Bill Vinovich's crew

After Rams vs. Saints, Sean McVay knows PI call missed, but also saw Goff facemask

Referees also missed several penalty calls that hurt Rams

4 pics of missed penalties

This would add much needed perspective to the game summary.

2600:1702:2100:1680:DD4B:8F5F:2BC6:B177 (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

Add to the section "Exit Los Angeles 1992-1994:"

The biggest factor that lead to the NFL Owners to approve the move to St. Louis on their second vote was Georgia Frontier agreeing to split the PSL (Private Seat License) Revenue with the other owners. She took the $74 million the RAMS received and gave $37 million to the league to split between all of the teams. At the time, this was the first use of PSL's in the NFL [see this article: https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/5-ways-nfl-fans-lost-the-personal-seat-license-gamble-13318781] and has become a common practice for teams to implement, especially with a new stadium. BDrake4014 (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source offered fails verification and does not substantiate the claims offered. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Can somebody please tell me which logo is the main logo and which is the alternate logo, the white or the blue? SportsFan007 (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is at: File talk:New LA Rams Logo.png#Rams logo confusion SportsFan007 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

Jared Goof 47.157.130.114 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Minnesota Vikings

Hi Rams fans. I am a Vikings fan wondering if you think a Rams-Vikings page would be worth creating. They have played 7 times in the playoffs making (the second most played opponent after the Cowboys. Things working against this rivalry would be a lack of recent major games. Ultimately, if someone creates, it has to be defended otherwise it would be immediately be deleted. Do you consider there to be a historical rivalry with the Minnesota Vikings.

Ultimately it's not about whether fans think it's a good idea; it's just about whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources that describes this matchup as a rivalry. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
do you think there are enough sources to substantiate it? Lots of websites call it a major rivalry but mostly in the context of the 1970's. ClutchPoints.com calls the Vikings the Rams 3rd biggest rival but I have a hard time believing they are that high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackmar1 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The Vikings couldn't care less about the Rams. They're just another opponent. – PeeJay 02:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the premise of this entire discussion around rivals is whether notability exists as confirmed by articles, not whether the fans care. I agree its a normal game for both organizations. Sometimes, rivalries are historic in nature even if they have tamed. Vikings-Rams is in the same bucket as Cowboys-Rams: historic rivalries with lots of great history. This platform has not proposed for deletion the following rivalries that could fall into the same bucket: Cowboys-Rams, Giants-Packers, Packers-Seahawks, Ravens-Titans. Cowboys-Rams has almost no back-up on why a rivalry exists. User talk:Jackmar1 02:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

Superbowl 56 Campions 207.5.53.207 (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Angeles_Rams/Archive_2&oldid=1240644117"