Talk:Los Angeles Angels/Archive 1

message: An obviously knowledgable baseball fan and writer (Uncle Al) differs with my written stance that many in the "Southland" (or elsewhere) are confused between the PCL Angels and the MLB Angels. They are, of course, two COMPLETELY different organizations. The MLB Angels only bought the name from the PCL Angels.
It's a shame, as I personally would rather watch the Hollywood Stars and the Los Angeles Angels play non-MLB ball again in 2005 as I'd rather see anything.
UncleAl, me'bye, just argue your position here. If it's good enough, well, you can't be THAT far away that you can't get a free beer out of me. 
Y'aaarrghh me'byes,
JamesMadison 09:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Angeles Angels (PCL) and Los Angeles Angels (MLB) 

message: Why didn't the discussion page from Anaheim Angels get transferred here? Acsenray 20:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anaheim Angels discussion 

message: Note on the name change of the Angels:
http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/teams/news_story.asp?ID=125124&hubName=mlb-angels Win777
If someone is going to claim that fans in Riverside County were insulted by the inclusion of "Los Angeles" in the name, they need to cite something because I think that claim is fairly weak.
To the person who is claiming that "most fans" still refer to team as the Anaheim Angels, come up with some evidence; otherwise it's a questionable statement.--Truthiness 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to your opinion, but this isn't the place for it.  Talk pages are not message boards.  And please, sign your posts.  --Chancemichaels 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: to chime in here,  the name "Angels"  came from the name "Los Angeles" meaning, "the angels" quite literally. (read "the team gets it's name, on the article page). The Angels simply have more fans now that Arte Moreno noticed a such a wide market.  I don't see why you'd complain but, as Chancemichaels said above, you are entitled to your opinion.  I root for the Ducks and the Kings, the Dodgers and the Angels, the Lakers and the Clippers, UCLA where I got my BA and USC where I got my Masters.  We're lucky to have so many teams to enjoy. In particular, many of us baseball fans feel it is metaphorically "kosher" to have a favorite AL and NL team since the game strategies  are completely different.  And let us not forget that Scioscia, a Dodger catcher when said Dodgers won the World Series, is one of the main reasons the Angels are winners.  The man is amazing.  You need to get over it; it has been better for everyone and brought much more tax revenue to Anaheim, greater success and visibiity to the Angels and has given disappointed Dodger fans an alternative in the AL.  If you want support for "your" team, you've got lots more now thanks to Moreno. Bmccarren 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About name change 

message: There are almost two identical articles, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Anaheim Angels.  I know there are quite a few diehard Angels fans who will always call them the Anaheim Angels, but their official name is now the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Wikipedia needs to reflect this.  Even if you are against the name being the LAA of Anaheim, that doesn't change the fact that there are two nearly identical articles with the same content. PS2pcGAMER 12:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Merge (Dec 6, 2005) 

message: Absolutely not.  This is a situation that is to resolve itself in the next few months.  When a decision is made, then we should look at what needs to be done.  The reason for the virtually identical looking content is because much of the work that was put into the Angels on Wiki was hijacked, when they tried to change the name, and most reference to the ongoing situation seems to disappear quickly by those who chose to delete it.  The Anaheim Angels name was resurrected to allow for those discussions and entries to take place, as the situation gets resolved.
If, in a few months, it is determined by the courts that the Angels can legally continue to use the moniker of Los Angeles, then we should think about merging the 2, or redirecting Anaheim Angels to Los Angeles, or leaving this entry and focusing on the span of the Anaheim Angels time, and the demise of the name.
Either outcome aside, having a separate entry for Anaheim Angels should continue.
Do NOT merge.
TheUrbanLegend 09:07, 7 December 2005 (PST)
*Do not Merge, I agree with Urban Legend on this. The name change is not officially recognized by some media outlets and the city of Anaheim (Their website still calls the team the Anaheim Angels). I consider the city the higher power of authority on this matter then the team which has broken contract by attempting to change the name.Gateman1997 20:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do NOT Merge (Dec 7, 2005) 

message: I removed the disambiguation pertaining to the "Los Angeles Angels ice hockey team."  After an extensive search, I found the following defunct hockey teams:  Los Angeles Canadiens, Los Angeles Millionaires, and Los Angeles Richfields (California hockey League); Los Angeles Ice Dogs (International Hockey League); Los Angeles Monarchs (Pacific Coast Hockey League); Los Angeles Blades (Western Hockey League); and Los Angeles Aces/Sharks (World Hockey Association).  But no Angels.  If the poster or anyone else has information about a hockey team named the LA Angels, please set up a new page about the team and provide us with information.  Thanks!  Uncle Al 00:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice Angels? 

message: Los Angeles Angels (1961 to September 1, 1965) 
California Angels (September 2, 1965 to November 18, 1996) 
Anaheim Angels (November 19, 1996 to January 2, 2005)
the team was still playing the 1965 season in Sept of 65 and still using LA
the name change would have occurred after the season. Smith03 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cal name change 

message: Worth mentioning as trivia in this article? --Geopgeop 07:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Angels in the Outfield]] 

message: The article suggests the "CA" came from the postal abbreviation for California.  I have to confess that I always thought it was "CA" for California Angels.  Have I been mistaken all these years on that one?  Mwelch 22:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old "CA" logo 

message: The cap logo is incorrect - it should have white outline  just like the primary logo.  Somebody with a vector graphic should fix.  --Chancemichaels 23:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cap logo 

message: Would anyone else care to address the issue of User 63.167.256.231's insistence on classifying "most fans" as using the Anaheim name without providing any supporting citation for that claim?  Perhaps even address the user on their talk page?  The user in quesiton has not responded to my messages, so I don't know if anyone else will have any better luck.  However, it's not really appropriate to take it to a wider Wikipedia audience for dispute resolution until more than one person has at least tried to contact the user.  Mwelch 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most fans" vs. "many fans" dispute 

message: I would like to commend all of the authors of this article for writing it so well.  I hope that all baseball related articles can be improved to meet this article's standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.146.204.106 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GREAT ARTICLE!! 

message: Somebody reverted the primary logo to the ballpark-shaped version, which was discarded by the club years ago.  This is not the official logo.  Since the team was renamed in 1995, the logo has been just the "A".    --Chancemichaels 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit confused.  As I look at the article, the primary logo does appear to be shown as just the "A", and seems to have been throughout the article's recent history.  The only place I see the ballpark logo is in the section on the 2002 season, and that was indeed the logo at that time.  Am I overlooking something?  Mwelch 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the reason you're seeing the new logo in the history is because I over-wrote the old image, so we didn't have to change the existing links.  If you look at the history for the image, you'll see that there has been somthing of a revision war, and it had been reverted to the wrong logo last month.  I put a notice here as well as the image's Talk page in the hopes that it would not be reverted again.  --Chancemichaels 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, coooooool.  Hadn't ever seen quite that kind of an edit war before. 8-)  Mwelch 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct primary logo 

message: I am deleting this para:
During the thirty-one years that the team was known as the California Angels, the team never once wore the word California on its uniforms (although during some years the team's logo included a California state map). Far from marketing the team statewide, Angel ownership had instead marketed the team as an Orange County team. So, in a sense, the 1997 name change was official confirmation of de facto team policy since 1966.
While true, it is Original Research.  If not, it should be sourced. If it can be sourced, please put it back in.  --Chancemichaels 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research? 

message: Another editor has added the "" template to the article Rally Monkey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tikiwont 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel the page shouldn't be deleted, just remove the tag.  Obviously, many are in favour of keeping it.  VoL†ro/\/Force 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Rally Monkey]] 

message: There is some big vandalisms in this page. I'd suggest a reversion plus a partial protection on the peg NOW. Aladdin Lee 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit WAR 

message: I set up archiving on this talk page, because there were some comments over three years old.   jj137 ♠ 01:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: :Image:WingedANA.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:WingedANA.gif 

message: Because of continued reverts to the article by IPs (same user?) to include the Dodgers as Main Rivals, I suggest everyone that wants vote here on Keeping or Removing the Dodgers from the list. I do not think that the Dodgers come close to coming under the label Main Rivals to the Angels as they are not in the same League and only began playing each other recently under interleague play. I think that a changing of the heading to Divisional Rivals and removing the Dodgers from the list might be a better option.
Remove per above. -ÅfÇ++ 6 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
I agree and think the splitting of the rivals into Divisional Rivals and Geographic Rival was a good idea.  I am also happy that the further explanation attached to the Geographic Rival (i.e., that the Angels and Dodgers are only geographic rivals because MLB says they are) was removed.  That qualifier would be better attached to the Padres-Mariners "rivalry" or the Braves-Red Sox "rivalry", both contrived and created by MLB to fill in the schedule while the Angels-Dodgers, Athletics-Giants, Mets-Yankees, and Cubs-Sox games are played.  The Angels and Dodgers are both LA-area teams, are true geographic rivals (if not main rivals), and in fact have played the pre-season Freeway Series exhibition since 1962.  Uncle Al
:Agreed, this article would be best served by having two distinct categories  Bsharkey (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rivals" 

message: Why is the section about the 2002 team have an infobox that says its neutrality is disputed, when there is nothing on the talk page explaining what may be under dispute nor do I find any content in this section which could be considered objectionable or not from a neutral point of view.   I propose removing this infobox unless somebody can justify it  Bsharkey (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2002 Disputed? 

message: There is nothing showing the CA logo or LA logo which originally appeared on the hat for the 1961 season, but we have every other logo of the team detailed in the article.  The current "A" is in the infobox at the top, but not discussed or shown in the body of the article.  The Disney logo and previous "A" are also shown.  But I'd really like to have the CA logo which actually had two incarnations, when the team name was originally switched from "Los Angeles Angels" to "California Angels" upon the move to Anaheim, and the mid-90s CA logo which lasted about 3 seasons (my favorite the team has ever had, which is why it caught my attention).  Why not document all logos for the franchise, instead of just picking and choosing seemingly at random?  Bsharkey (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CA logo revisited, current logo 

message: The Angels have made the switch to 830am and are no longer on 710 ESPN. I am not sure why someone keeps changing it back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.166.184.106 (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angels have moved to 830am for the 2008 season no longer on 710 ESPN 

message: Why are the titles of each section so fanciful?  It doesn't seem to be in line with what other wikipedia articles do.  I guess you could say they are creative, but I personally found them a little distracting/random when reading the article.
Ocedits (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like them as well.  Besides, they're in line with other baseball articles, notably Milwaukee Brewers and Chicago White Sox.  SixFourThree (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Titles 

message: For crissakes, the Toronto Blue Jays and New York Yankees are not the traditional rivals with the Angels! The only real rivals are against the Seattle Mariners, Oakland A's. The Dodgers can be included because of the proximity and dividing of familial loyalties, and the Red Sox can be put in due to the matchups in the playoffs. New York Yankees, while a great fan draw, is not a main rivalry for the Angels....only twice have they met in the playoffs and moreover it isn't a feud that has great implications.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.223.50 (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivals again 

message: This section is getting much better.  I'm editing it somewhat to make it more NPOV ("In spite of the legal victory by the team" implies that the Angels were somehow stymied in their goal to re-brand, when the reality is that they never announced an intention to use "Los Angeles" on their uniforms.  I'm also adding the section about fan response back in - seems worthwhile to include a little bit of the fallout from the case.
The opening section seems to give this case far too much weight - is it really worth two whole paragraphs in the introduction, especially since this is covered in detail below?  SixFourThree (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really germane?  And please sign your posts.  SixFourThree (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The team renamed: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim 

message: So sad... 72.79.230.52 (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIP 34 

message: shouldn't there be something not just a link to the "main" article.--Levineps (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section 

message: I have a few questions about the Angels' uniforms that I'm hoping can be answered here.  The classic Angels uniform that was just worn recently.  Is that going to be an oft used uniform, or was it just for a special day?  Also, is the red alternate still used?--The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Uniforms 

message: RobDe68 (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit history break Anaheim Angels to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim 

message: Should there be a section dedicated to the three All-Star games that have taken place in Anaheim?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthYenik (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-Star games 

message: Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that.  If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons.  I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page.  However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team.  yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
Nope.  Not needed.  Why they do it for football (soccer) makes no sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality of Players 

message: User:Marksanta123 has been blocked for abusively using IPs (and another username) to edit this page to support his POV. We can now revert his socks' edits on sight. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent news. I tried putting this page up at WP:RFP but I guess there wasn't enough vandalism to warrant protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I had asked an admin to look into the issue, and he filed a checkuser about it. From the user's talk page, he seems oblivious to what WP's purpose is. - BilCat (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV editor now blocked 

message: I wanted to get users consensus about who thinks it would be a good idea to add the franchise years history from before the team joined the MLB.  The only reason I have brought this up recently and have taken so personally, is that i continue to see this as an issue of many other people who know the history of the team and the PCL for what it was, and would like to acknowledge how the continuity of the name through business transactions has given the team the right to a connection in professional baseball before joining the MLB.  
At the very least I believe that putting distinguished years as such : Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim(2005-present) Anaheim Angels(1997-2004) California Angels(1965-1996) Los Angeles Angels(MLB)(1961-1965) Los Angeles Angels (PCL)(1903-1957) Los Angeles Angels(CL)[No relation besides name] (1892-1893)...would allow to help with confusion of statements made throughout the page that reference back to the team before joining the MLB so at least people can see the years played before MLB and realize that it played in a different league.  The way the page is referenced to the Angels before the MLB makes it seem as if the team was playing in the MLB since 1892.
I would suggest an unbiased poll, any people who have connections on wikipedia to Yankee fans or any of the rival teams mentioned on this page should not vote on this due to recent controversy, remember were trying to leave this vote up to people who know the history, so only voice your opinion if you know the history of the team or PCL.  After all, why have any users voting or voicing an opinion who don't know of the material or issue at hand?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.143.137 (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus does not run by voting. The fact you fail to understand this and, in fact, believe it to be so based on Wikipedia's own pages, leads me to believe that the competency required to edit on Wikipedia cannot be assumed to be present. That, combined the fact that you are, once again, obviously evading your block, without retracting your legal threat to boot, has led me to block your IP and semi-protect the article (again). - The Bushranger One ping only 11:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Consensus on Franchise years 

message: Please be aware of any IP address starting with "173.51". User:Marksanta123, who has been duly blocked for sockpuppetry, uses these IP addresses to push the idea that these Angels and the Los Angeles Angels of the Pacific Coast League are the same franchise. They aren't. Please add it to the SPI case if he returns. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Read up on your Australian history, mate. And I've been removing the info from the lead because it's WP:CONSENSUS that including it there is WP:UNDUE, it's what Marksanta123 and his socks do (and contributions of an indefinitly blocked user can be removed by anyone at any time), and - surprise - Marksanta123 also played the "fans of rival teams attacking the page" card. Quack, quack. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  173.51.xxx.xxx 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080309133524/http://fromthedugout.freedomblogging.com:80/2008/03/04/angels-spring-radio/ to http://fromthedugout.freedomblogging.com/2008/03/04/angels-spring-radio/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060813094324/http://www.baseballhalloffame.org:80/hofers_and_honorees/lists/players.htm to http://baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/lists/players.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi.  I noticed that the opening paragraph here states: 
"The "Angels" name was continued by former film star and Medal of Honor hero Gene Autry..."  
I was surprised by this, since I had never heard this claim before.  Upon checking the corresponding article here on Gene Autry, I found nothing about him winning a Medal of Honor.  If this is indeed so, therefore, could you please remove this unsourced and incorrect reference, since it might be perceived as an attempt to put an undue honor on a man who, though patriotic and a veteran, was not awarded the US's highest military honor.  Thanks153.229.105.43 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it's true, it has no relevance to the Angels. I'm removing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gene Autry...Medal of Honor winner?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. 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/20140506182158/http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/2012/05/rangers-angels-rivalry-how-did.html/ to http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/2012/05/rangers-angels-rivalry-how-did.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303225748/http://www.sportshollywood.com:80/lawrigley.html to http://www.sportshollywood.com/lawrigley.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe the commons link should be renamed because they don’t use the “of Anaheim” anymore. SportsFan007 (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the category on Commons needs to be renamed, see :commons:Commons:Rename a category. Just changing the link here makes the link stop working, which isn't much use. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons link 

message: Does anyone know if the Angels are changing back to the Los Angeles Angels for the 2014 season or are they remaining the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.30 (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As of right now (March 27, 2014), the team is still officially named Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, even though they are free to drop the of Anaheim at any time. I assume that the name will be officially changed in time for the 2015 season, but that is just speculation on my part. --CASportsFan (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like they've changed it officially, if quietly: their official Facebook, Instagram and Twitter pages all say "Los Angeles Angels".  SixFourThree (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On MLB.com, it says "THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE LOS ANGELES ANGELS OF ANAHEIM". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but that's the same site that used "Florida Marlins" for three years after they officially changed.  Maintenance doesn't seem to be high on their list of priorities. SixFourThree (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

text: And FWIW, the MLB team list calls them "Los Angeles Angels". Odd.  SixFourThree (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

text: See the discussion below. We acknowledged that some sources, both primary and secondary, still use "of Anaheim"; however, evidence showed that the vast majority of primary and secondary sources no longer have "of Anaheim" mentioned, and that even after the official change included "of Anaheim", it wasn't used by most secondary sources in referencing the team in media. I think the only issue is whether or not "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" is the official name, even if it never really has been the common name. I do agree that the sources don't indicate the change was officially made; it just appears the Angels have dropped it on most of their sites without legally changing anything. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: Are the Yankees and angels actually rivals? One playoff meeting and a reference to a minor league team by the same name? Seems to be trying too hard HunkD25 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , agreed. I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivals 

message: He signed a contract with the team.  Anthony Rendon
Elijahandskip (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , provide a source that says it is complete. The sources I see attribute this news to "anonymous sources", which sometimes are wrong. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28279696/sources-anthony-rendon-agrees-7-year-245m-deal-angels ESPN is a very reliable source for sport related information.  The source wanted to be anonymous, so we have to respect that.  Just like the whistleblower was anonymous, but Wikipedia went on with adding information with anonymous sources.  If you do not want an update tag, at least add a tag about a free-agent is effecting this article.Elijahandskip (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , the headline says "Sources: Anthony Rendon agrees to 7-year, $245M deal with Angels". Emphasis mine. The article says "Third baseman Anthony Rendon has agreed to a seven-year, $245 million contract with the Los Angeles Angels, sources told ESPN's Jeff Passan on Wednesday. The deal includes a full no-trade clause and doesn't contain an opt-out clause, sources said. Rendon is tentatively scheduled to undergo his physical Friday and be introduced at Angel Stadium on Saturday." Emphasis mine. What that means is that there's an agreement in principle, but without a signed contract, it's meaningless. What if Rendon fails his physical? What then? It could happen. It has happened. Agreements fall through. We don't update pages based on anonymous reports. We wait for the team to confirm the deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthony Rendon 

message: The Franchise history section still says "Although the deal was never finalized, as of 2020, most official sources omit the "of Anaheim" suffix. However, officially speaking, the club is still officially referred to as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim."
I don't think this is supported by any sources. I changed these lines to say "Starting in the 2016 season, the team dropped the "Anaheim" name and now is referred to as the Los Angeles Angels.", but my changes were reverted and I was asked to discuss here.
Per the previous talk discussions, it appears that the Angels dropped the "of Anaheim" part of their name in 2016. Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources provided above have been known since 2017, but the team's been annoyingly inconsistent on the matter. Are these two articles (reporting on the same incident) really enough to prove the team changed its name? O.N.R. (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just want to be consistent, since the rest of the article has changed the name to remove "of Anaheim". Also, the previous discussions #Source for name change? and #Requested move 28 April 2017 seem to show that the team is now the "Los Angeles Angels". Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in Franchise history section