Talk:Anaheim Angels

A move to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is probably called for, but I might recommend waiting to see how the legal struggles, if any, play out. Acsenray 22:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CALLED FOR?! This is most definitely uncalled for. Arte Moreno is a traitor for betraying the team and fans. I am an Anaheim Angels fan, not a Los Angeles Angels fan. Boycott the team and support the City of Anaheim and help them get the team back to it's old name. If they move to LA when the contract is up, which is in 2026, I believe, you better believe I'm gonna be pissed. ANAHEIM Angels Fan 00:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There no longer exists a team playing under this name. The article as was, made it seem as though there were a team currently playing under this name. Furthermore, the article was basically a copy of the article that currently exists in the page of the current team name. ÅfÇ++ 04:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the city of Anaheim you are wrong. They officially refer to the team as the Anaheim Angels.Gateman1997 07:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Having two articles with near-identical content makes no sense at all. Since the Angels themselves call them the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, that is the name that should be used for the article. look.  If anyone can point out why there should be two nearly identical articles, meaning both articles have to be updated each time someone wants to add new content, go right ahead.  Because the City of Anaheim and many Angels fans disputes this, doesn't change the fact that their name has legally been changed.  I think AfC's version of the article accurately reflects the dispute over the name change well enough so that readers will understand what is going on.  When the legal stuff gets resolved, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim article can then be moved if necessary. There has also been precedent on Wikipedia for things like this.  See Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute.  The East Sea is even recognized by many different sources like Rand McNally and National Geographic also use the term "East Sea" and the article is still titled "Sea of Japan".  Unlike the Sea of Japan naming dispute, no organization is continuing to use the Anaheim Angel name.  Fox calls them the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (LAA) as does ESPN, so really the only people who refuse to are the fans and the City of Anaheim (mid center of page) which is not a valid reason to have two identical articles.  PS2pcGAMER 08:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I consider the City of Anaheim which refers to them as the Anaheim Angels in all references as the superior source when compared to ESPN. And the assertion that the name change is legal is tenuous at best since it is under pending litigation.Gateman1997 08:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * PS2pcGAMER's points are all spot on, with one exception. The problem is that he is trying to be logical and reasonable with those who are but emotional.  The one assertion he makes which I take exception to is that "the fans" are opposed to the LA Angels' name.  As a matter of fact, the opponents are a relative handful of fans.  Angel management stated last spring that they lost perhaps 500 season tickets (that the number of seats, not ticket holders) as a result, none of them in prime locations, and that the forfeited tickets were immediately snatched up by others (the Angels now have more season ticket holders than do their cross-town rivals, the LA Dodgers).  Some points to consider:
 * --The protests over the name change to LA Angels of Anaheim PALE before the 1996 protests over the change from CA Angels to Anaheim Angels, from fans who (rightly so) thought the new name was embarrassing and minor league.
 * --When the name change was announced, the Angels blogs (which I check almost every day) were 100% against it. Now, after having time to reflect and seeing the direction the team is going, the bloggers are for the most part in favor of the change (especially after seeing how the name change ticked off Frank McCourt).
 * --Baseball teams with long and storied traditions---REAL traditions---such as the Brooklyn Dodgers, Philadelphia A's, NY Giants, Washington Senators, and the like do NOT have their own pages, but rather redirect to the recent version of the respective team. The "Anaheim" Angels existed for eight years.  That's right, EIGHT whole years.  Wow.
 * --This controversy will NOT go away after thr trial is over. Both sides have stated they will appeal if they lose the case.
 * --Curt Pringle's lawsuit has all but killed any chance the, ahem, "Los Angeles" NFL team will be located in Anaheim. Publicly, the NFL has stated the lawsuit will not affect their decision, but privately they have stated otherwise.
 * --The continuous re-posting of the "official" Anaheim Angels site reminds me of Wikipedia a few years ago, when one zealous anti-abortion activist maintained a 24/7 watch over the article, reposting time after time an article equating abortion with homicide.
 * --Am I the only one who has noticed that the current bearer of the "Anaheim" torch, on his user page describes himself as a fan of the Oakland Athletics, arguably the halos' biggest rival at this time? Uncle Al 01:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

-

--The protests over the name change to LA Angels of Anaheim PALE before the 1996 protests over the change from CA Angels to Anaheim Angels, from fans who (rightly so) thought the new name was embarrassing and minor league.
 * Yes, but the protests then were about a team who's bandwagon had not filled up with frontrunners. Back then, the only people that knew what was going on were the long-time, hardcore fans.  Now, with so many newcomers that don't care about the team, it seems as if there's less fallout.  It's the core fanbase that are most affected by this attempted change.
 * How does this merit two identical pages having the same information. Wikipedia is meant to be a source of information for those not familiar with the subjects they are researching. How will having two identical pages of information be more helpful than the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim page with the teams history, stats, etc. And this page with an overview of the on going dispute.

--When the name change was announced, the Angels blogs (which I check almost every day) were 100% against it. Now, after having time to reflect and seeing the direction the team is going, the bloggers are for the most part in favor of the change (especially after seeing how the name change ticked off Frank McCourt).
 * See above.

--Baseball teams with long and storied traditions---REAL traditions---such as the Brooklyn Dodgers, Philadelphia A's, NY Giants, Washington Senators, and the like do NOT have their own pages, but rather redirect to the recent version of the respective team. The "Anaheim" Angels existed for eight years. That's right, EIGHT whole years. Wow.
 * Those other baseball teams do not have a dispute over their their names.
 * No, the difference is time. Whatever the outcome of the court decision one page will eventually need to be redirected to the other as the events leading to two seperate pages will become history and no longer merit their own page in the way that current events due.

--This controversy will NOT go away after thr trial is over. Both sides have stated they will appeal if they lose the case.
 * But didn't Arturo state that if the decision is appealed, he would try to move the team? So, if the Angels are found to have breached the contract, Arturo appeals, and the Angels move.  Hmmm.
 * Huh? What does this have to do with anything being argued here?

--Curt Pringle's lawsuit has all but killed any chance the, ahem, "Los Angeles" NFL team will be located in Anaheim. Publicly, the NFL has stated the lawsuit will not affect their decision, but privately they have stated otherwise.
 * Are you saying that you're privy to conversations away from public scrutiny? Where did you get this idea?

--The continuous re-posting of the "official" Anaheim Angels site reminds me of Wikipedia a few years ago, when one zealous anti-abortion activist maintained a 24/7 watch over the article, reposting time after time an article equating abortion with homicide.
 * Ah, a knock on the suppporters of the City of Anaheim as being "religious fanatics". And you think you're unbiased?

--Am I the only one who has noticed that the current bearer of the "Anaheim" torch, on his user page describes himself as a fan of the Oakland Athletics, arguably the halos' biggest rival at this time?
 * I have never, ever, ever supported the Oakland Athletics, but with the rest of the baseball world laughing at the Angels as a result of this, is it any wonder that rivals would be happy that the Baseball team made a faux pax, and now they're being held to task for it?
 * The reference was to the other user in favor of the two identical pages who names himself an Oakland Athletics fan in his user page.

The Angels and the City of Los Angeles have a long history. I'm sure if Arturo had chosen to change the name to California Angels (the longest running incaration of monikers for the Angels, mind you) I'm sure there would have been much less of an uproar, or even "The California Angels of Anaheim". The biggest insult to Angels fans is placing Los Angeles on the name. Period.

While the name remains under dispute, there ought to be a place for this to be discussed and debated. By simply redirecting Anaheim Angels to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, it greatly diminishes any arguement that there is against the name change, by creating the image of inevitability to the new name. There is certainly no inevitability, and the City of Anaheim has a strong case, with legal history in their favor. It is, from a legal perspective, shaky ground that the Angels are standing on, hence the "marketing" arguement.


 * "The biggest insult to Angels fans is placing Los Angeles on the name. Period." POV? If it is or not, the fact is that Angels Baseball LP has choosen it's name to have Los Angeles therein. Don't make Wikipedia a battleground simply because you happen to be insulted. "While the name remains under dispute, there ought to be a place for this to be discussed and debated." Wikipedia is not a public debate forum, it is a place where facts are listed, not argued over. Present the city's opinion, and the team's opinion, but don't include your own. And certainly don't argue that simply copy-pasting one page on to another clearly presents the arguements over the name, it is counter-productive and wastefully takes up space. -ÅfÇ++ 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I just got back to this page, and want to thank TheUrbanLegend for expressing his opinion forcefully, and ÅfÇ++ for his rebuttals. My only suggestion is to TheUrbanLegend, that he sign his work so we know who we're dealing with.  It only took me a few minutes on the "history" page to figure this out, but it's better if the work is signed.

The only thing I will point out in addition to ÅfÇ++'s rebuttals is that at no time did I state that "suppporters (sic) of the City of Anaheim [were] religious fanatics."

Remember, gang, official proclamations may or may not sway public opinion. About 30 years ago, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus declared itself an independent nation. With the lone exception of Turkey, its existence has been universally ignored. Likewise, the official decision of the city of Londonderry, Northern Ireland to rename itself Derry has been ignored not only by the UK government, but by every major mapmaker in the world (although Wikipedia does redirect to Derry). In spite of the name change, sportswriters, play-by-play announcers, and fans for the most part still refer to the team as "Anaheim," though that may change over time.

I still think the "Anaheim Angels" article is rife with POVs, and would best be merged with the article on the Name Change Dispute. But, as long as the article does not duplicate the official LA Angels page (as though the name change never happened), I will resist the urge to rewrite the POVs there. Uncle Al 20:26, 01 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with main article
Now that the legal struggles are over (barring any appeal, which by all accounts seems unlikely), I think it's time to seriously talk about merging. Not about the name itself, not about Moreno, not about the merits of the name change, but how best to handle entries on the various names the team has had. --Chancemichaels 22:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I support merging with with Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. It doesn't make any more sense to have this page than it does a page devoted only to the New York Highlanders or the Houston Colt .45s. Or, for that matter, the Brooklyn Dodgers or Seattle Pilots. We should strive for consistency in how we handle changes in franchise names. --Chancemichaels 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
 * I strongly support the proposed merger. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose the merger.Gateman1997 02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Maybe there should be a page for Brooklyn Dodgers or New York Highlanders. There's enough examples for both sides of this debate; I see no harm in keeping this page. DR31 (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. There aren't pages about the Brooklyn Dodgers or New York Highlanders because that information is found incorporated in the history sections of current team pages. ÅfÇ++ 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the merger. That makes sense to me - why should "Anaheim Angels" be any different than "Brooklyn Dodgers"? That one had eighty years of history, and it's included in the LA Dodgers page.  It doesn't make any sense that the couple years of "Anaheim Angels" should need its own page. —This unsigned comment was added by 63.164.145.85 (talk • contribs) 27 March 2006.
 * Support the merger. The article about the name change dispute itself should stay separate. But as long as that one exists, there's no need for this one. This one should be merged. Mwelch 20:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This page should not be here. Anaheim Angels should redirect to LA Angels. Uncle Al 16:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose the merger. --Lyght 03:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the merger. A primary policy of Wikipedia is uniformity of form among like articles. Essentially every other sports team which has changed names and/or moved is listed under its presently acknoweldged name. There has been no reason, let alone a compelling reason, why this situation should be different, defeating the policy of uniformity I mentioned above. Oh, and I've been an Angels fan since they were California Angels. It's not as if I've been pining for a page for "California Angels" since 1997. Citizen Sunshine 21:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the merger. No opposition arguments have really even been NPOV except for the one about the City of Anaheim still referring to the team as the "Anaheim Angels." Baseball has accepted the name change, and it is in de-facto use today.  The article regarding the naming dispute is the place to detail arguments regarding the name change... not here. Jhortman 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the merger. There is no information in Anaheim Angels that isn't in Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Theshibboleth 02:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Would those of you who opposed, please state why? Opposing without stating why doesn't add to the discussion. The problem with keeping this page is that it can be confusing to people who are browsing Wikipedia. If they click on a link that points to Anaheim Angels and it should point to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, it adds another layer they have to go through. It doesn't make sense. Furthermore this article repeats parts of two other articles, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim name dispute. I feel that this page DOES do harm. The precedent set by other baseball team articles is to have a redirect. Unless there is a valid reason, that precedent not be changed. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said. Last year, one of the more outspoken opponents of a merger, TheUrbanLegend, wrote: "While the name remains under dispute, there ought to be a place for this to be discussed and debated."  Well, the name is no longer under dispute, so why does this page still exist?  Uncle Al 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Supporters of the merge outnumber opponents by a 3-1 margin. There have been no new votes for five days. There have been no new opposition votes for over two weeks. And none of the opponents have responded to PS2pcGAMER's call two weeks ago to provide valid reasons for opposition beyond just not liking the new name.

I think we should go ahead and merge. Mwelch 07:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU!!! ---Uncle Al 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)