Talk:Los Angeles Rams/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  They aren't the LA Rams... Yet... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: NFL Network has announced that they'll be in LA next season....key name NFL. CrashUnderride 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  L.A. approval and past tense 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Team History in sidebar 

message: Please change the title to Los Angeles Rams, since the franchise has been relocated.
Rjbc (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Team color template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So, should the Coliseum be replaced with TBD until it is known? Elisfkc (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is Official.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , until it's official, it shouldn't be here.  can you provide a source that confirms it officially? Otherwise, it shouldn't be there. Elisfkc (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum]] 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Undo Page move?

message: 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)
replies: text: Can somebody change the title from St. Louis Rams to Los Angeles Rams? Linuxrocks3234 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  since the team announced they are officially moving. Elisfkc (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016 

message: Change the main title from St.Louis Rams to Los Angeles Rams
RubinWiki (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Info box 

message: 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.
::Confirmed here, here and here. Tom Danson (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: They are officially the Los Angeles Rams

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Currently, the domain name is still stlouisrams.com . Elisfkc (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  New domain name? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change to Los Angeles Rams immediately (no discussion needed)  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lift Protection  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Team Name Change 

message: 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)
replies: text: Concur with immediate move. It's official. - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think it's time to switch the article over now 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2016 

message: 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.   Mark Schierbecker (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Logo 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Los Angeles Rams 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Logo, New Jersey 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140221154310/http://www.ksdk.com/story/sports/nfl/rams/2014/01/30/stan-kroenke-plot-of-land-california-st-louis-rams/5069985/ to http://www.ksdk.com/story/sports/nfl/rams/2014/01/30/stan-kroenke-plot-of-land-california-st-louis-rams/5069985/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716024902/http://www.uniwatchblog.com/research-projects/white-at-home-in-the-nfl/ to http://www.uniwatchblog.com/research-projects/white-at-home-in-the-nfl/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018075556/http://footballresearch.com/articles/frpage.cfm?topic=afl35-41 to http://www.footballresearch.com/articles/frpage.cfm?topic=afl35-41
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151130011412/http://losangelesrams.org/about/statistics/attendance.html to http://www.losangelesrams.org/about/statistics/attendance.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit requests 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text: Discussion is at:  SportsFan007 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Logo 

message: Jared Goof 47.157.130.114 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: The Vikings couldn't care less about the Rams. They're just another opponent. – PeeJay 02:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Minnesota Vikings 

message: Superbowl 56 Campions 207.5.53.207 (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2022