Talk:Los Angeles Angels/Archive 1

Los Angeles Angels (PCL) and Los Angeles Angels (MLB)
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)

Do you REALLY think people confuse the two? I sometimes wear a 1956 Angels ballcap, and when asked why the "A" on my "Dodger" cap is red, I explain. The universal (to me) reaction is, "1956? That's impossible.  The Angels only began in 1961."

In my memory, the only team that's been able to get away with something like this was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the Cincinnati Reds all but claimed to be the modern version of the original pro team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings of 1869-1870, when in fact the only link is they played in the same city and had a similar name.

The AL Orioles began play in 1954 wearing the same uniforms (except for the Cardinal-esque bat and perched birds which were removed) as the International League Orioles wore the year before. Today, Oriole Park features a statue of Babe Ruth in an Oriole uniform--he of course never played for the AL Orioles but did play for the IL version. But, in spite of 50+ years of obfuscating this issue on the part of Oriole maangement, most people realize the AL Orioles were the St. Louis Browns prior to 1954.

The Milwaukee Brewers were another team that named themselves after the AAA version, in this case the American Association Brewers, and I doubt there are many people who think the current Brewers began in the AA. Other major league teams who have named themselves after defunct immediate-area minor league teams include the Rangers, Marlins, and Devil Rays.

I also recall that the AL Angels, during the early 1960s, depicted the team as an infant or toddler, thus acknowledging they were a "new" team. I have a few yearbooks and scorecards from that era with these cartoons in them.

Anyway, that's my contention. To spend a lot of time and effort documenting that the PCL Seraphs and AL Halos (even their nicknames were different) were separate organizations only states what to me, at least, seems pretty obvious.

Cheers - - UATKP

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

About name change
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)

I live in Orange county 10 min away from Angel Stadium. I think the name change was horrible. Many fans have 1 of 3 beefs. A. The dodgers are Los Angeles not the Angels B. Many Californians feel that all people think of when they think of California is LA, and the name change further perpetuates that LA is the only city in Southern California. C. The name sounds stupid the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim? Anaheim isn't in Los Angeles, the people of Anaheim who once held three teams, a football team, a baseball team, and a hockey team, now have just a hockey team even though Angels Stadium is 5 minutes away from where hockey is played. Another fact comes into play because the mighty ducks and the Arrowhead pond where renamed to THE DUCKS and THE HONDA CENTER. It's a kick em while his down mentality. But that's just what I've gathered from talking to my friends neighbors and family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitsugaya4321 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 17 April 2007


 * 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)Chancemichaels


 * 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)

Suggested Merge (Dec 6, 2005)
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)


 * Support the merge, now that the dust has settled.  Maintain a separate page to document the legal case and the controversy surrounding it, but merge the articles.  --Chancemichaels 19:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Do NOT Merge (Dec 7, 2005)
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)


 * Comment At least this issue is not as heated as the Expos debate (well, not yet). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not merge, I am in full support of the City of Anaheim, and I think the whole name change was not taken seriously enough by Major League Baseball. I think there should be separate pages until the legal stuff is worked out and the name is changed back. --Lyght 01:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ice Angels?
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)

Cal name change
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)

Actually, Smitty, as bizarre as it sounds, they DID change the name during the season---during a series, too! At one point I edited the main article to include a quote from Steve Bisheff, who wrote "Tales from the Angels Dugout" (it has since been edited out): "Maybe the biggest problem with this franchise is that there was never a plan.  There was always an experiment." I think a mid-season name change (the only one in MLB history that I'm aware of) falls under that summary! Uncle Al 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes, I think so. Give it a try. I never saw the movie, but I was an extra---one of the people in the stands. Uncle Al 18:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Old "CA" logo
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)

Found a document from Maple Leaf Productions (http://www.mapleleafproductions.com/scripts/aboutUs.asp) that also indicates it was only thd 'C' that was for California. The 'A' also had a halo over it, just like the has been common for the A in "Angels" in the teams jerseys/logos over the years, which also suggests that the A in that logo was meant to be for "Angels", not just the second letter of the postal code for California. So unless someone can cite a better source stating otherwise, I'm taking the postal code part out. Mwelch 00:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

With other users' permission, I've deleted the reference to the cap logo. The revised wording still conveys the same message, i.e., the absurdity of putting a state/regional name on a team that marketed itself to but one corner of the metropolitan era (see the Bisheff quote above re: the mid-season name change). I couldn't find Maple Leaf's explanation of the cap logo, but I did notice (1) their disclaimer that their information may not be completely accurate and (2) I did find one mistake in their write-up of the Athletics' uniforms over the years. I remember the CA logo and when it came out in 1965, just 2 years after the postal abbreviation changed from "Calif." to "CA". I and others I knew thought it stood for California, but maybe not. Uncle Al 19:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Given the uncertainty, and the fact that as you mention, the essential point being conveyed is still there even without mention of that particular logo, I'd say removing the whole thing was the correct call. Thanks! Mwelch 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

History section
Most sport teams with a history section this long usually have a separate page for it (such as the featured article New England Patriots). So should we put all the history in a new article and just give summaries on this page? McDonaldsGuy 04:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm prefer doing it that way (separate history article) but it doesn't bother me enough as it is to put up a fight if others feel strongly the other way. I think most of the (excellent) work on the history article was put in by User:Uncle Al . . . do you have any issue with making it a separate article, UA?  Mwelch 17:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that, but what are you really talking about? My printer will print the whole Angels article in 12 pages, and the "condensed" Patriots article in 11 pages, only a marginal difference in my opinion.  The Patriots "history" article takes 14 pages to print.  It might make more sense to condense the history portion of the main Angels article only slightly, then really expand the history article.  Maybe to include Dick Williams' now-famous coining of the name "Arson Squad" to describe the mid-1970s Angel bullpen?  Uncle Al  00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the better comparison would be the Patriots history article vs. only the Patriots history section of the main article. That said, I still wouldn't use that one as the model as the history section of the main article is too details (IMHO).  I'd use as a model the way the Lakers page used to be before about April 17.  Sadly, since then, the history section of the main page has been greatly expanded duplicating a lot of stuff that is in the separate history article.  *sigh*  Didn't have the page on my watchilst, so I didn't notice it until just now when I decided to point it out as a model to follow.  LOL


 * Anyhow, I think the history section on the main article here can definitely be condensed along the lines of how the Laker page was before, and I absolutely think continued expansion of a separate history article would then be wonderful.


 * For now, though, I've gotta find time at some point to repair the damage done on the Lakers page. Mwelch 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Also referred to as"
Rather than editing and counter-editing ad nauseum, can we agree on wording for the first para here? "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, also known as the Anaheim Angels" is misleading. "Anaheim Angels" is not the name of the team, and any references to such are inaccurate. I preferred the previous wording, which indicated that in some quarters old names for the team were used.

How about this:


 * "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are a Major League Baseball franchise based in Anaheim, California and aligned in the Western Division of the American League. They are informally referred to as the Halos. Because of the unusual length of the team's official name, most news organizations refer to the club as the Los Angeles Angels. The team is also sometimes referred to as the California Angels or the Anaheim Angels, both of which are former names of the team."

That's the most accurate, I believe. To elevate the City of Anaheim's occassional use of the former name (which was the justification for the most recent edit) to an equal footing with the team's official name violates NPOV in my opinion. The city lost its legal battle. The fight is over. That the city refuses to admit it should be included in the relevant articles but not given the credibility of equal time in the first paragraph.

Thoughts? --Chancemichaels 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels


 * Once again, this change was reverted without comment. "Also referred to as the Anaheim Angels" is not NPOV - it's taking sides in the (now settled) name dispute.  We need to strive to avoid this.  Otherwise, we might as well rename the article "Los Angeles Angels" and forget the "Anaheim" altogther - there's much more foundation for it, many more organizations use that shorthand.  Just because one entity - the City of Anaheim - is being a poor loser doesn't mean we have to be as well.  --Chancemichaels 03:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

For anyone to use the name Anaheim Angels is complete nonsense. It simply isn't the name of the team. When the City of Anaheim buys the team from Arte Moreno, they'll have the right to call the team whatever they please. To list the team as anything other than its official name is fraudulent.


 * I would tend to agree (but please sign your comment). It's very petulant and jeuvenile on the part of the City of Anaheim.  I think we should add something like "incorrectly referred to as "Anahiem Angels" by the City of Anaheim" or something.


 * And whoever keeps anonymously reverting the name, please stop. That is also childish.  --Chancemichaels 16:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels


 * I think "incorrectly referred to as 'Anaheim Angels'" would be POV. I think the language that has been proposed is sufficient.  --Nlu (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My proposed language, or what is currently in the article? I think mentioning the City of Anaheim's bizarre crusade in the opening para is a violation of POV as well - it's only been given such prominence because certain posters are sympathetic to it.   Here's what I would like to see:


 * "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are a Major League Baseball franchise based in Anaheim, California and aligned in the Western Division of the American League. They are informally referred to as the Halos. Because of the unusual length of the team's official name, most news organizations refer to the club as the Los Angeles Angels.


 * Thoughts? --Chancemichaels 23:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

At the very least, it shouldn't be at the beginning of the article. It is very cluttered and inappropriate. There is an entire section devoted to this below and an entire article devoted to the legal issues as well. The name issue is in reality a very small issue that does not deserve top billing. --Paladin677 12:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right.  We're  giving the issue much more importance than it deserves.  The entire name section should be moved down.  --Chancemichaels 23:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I don't know of anyone who still refers to the team as the "California Angels." I think a statement that claims as such may be factually incorrect.--Truthiness 22:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cap logo
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)Chancemichaels

Never mind, fixed it myself. --Chancemichaels 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

"Most fans" vs. "many fans" dispute
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)

I don't want to smear the many legitimate posters who don't register, but too often those who post under their IP addresses post their opinion rather than verifiable fact. That could be the case here. --Chancemichaels 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

GREAT ARTICLE!!
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).

Correct primary logo
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)Chancemichaels


 * 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)


 * 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)Chancemichaels


 * Ah, coooooool. Hadn't ever seen quite that kind of an edit war before. 8-)  Mwelch 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?
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)Chancemichaels

Rally Monkey
Another editor has added the "prod" 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 What Wikipedia is not and 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 prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tikiwont 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Edit WAR
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)

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

Fair use rationale for Image:WingedANA.gif
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 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)

"Rivals"
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)

2002 Disputed?
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)

CA logo revisited, current logo
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)

Angels have moved to 830am for the 2008 season no longer on 710 ESPN
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)

The Angels were not always on 710 they were on 570 KLAC before they moved to 710. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.123.251 (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Section Titles
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):I actually like these titles. I think it adheres to the be bold mantra of Wikipedia and nothing terribly violates NPOV.


 * 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)SixFourThree

Rivals again
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)

––––Not sure I would include the Sox myself...it's more of a friendly rivalry then anything. The Halos and the Sox have, for the most part, a good relationship. Dodgers are the #1 rival, due to proximity(and being the "little brother" so to speak). Yanks are a rival. Ask almost any Angels fan the teams they hate the most and it will be LA and NYY. Oakland and Seattle are division rivals with longer histories against the Angels, but the Yanks and Dodgers still draw the most excitment.71.105.4.65 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot make the Yankees are rival due to current trends. Historically, there is no trend to state that a hatred exists. Most Angels fans will say they hate Boston more, considering the Red Sox have knocked out the Angels out of the Playoffs in 2007, 2004, and 1986, not mention the wild card races. Hardly ever has their been a game of significant impact with the Yankees that has determines either team's futures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.217.149 (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The team renamed: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
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)SixFourThree

Anyone want to point out that in Spanish, the name would simply be Los Angeles de Anaheim?( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.189.42 (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that really germane? And please sign your posts.  SixFourThree (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

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

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

Alternate Uniforms
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)

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

All-Star games
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)

Distorted Angels logo
Anyone know why the angels logo is distorted looking? And/or how to fix it? Was there a change made to the template? -ÅfÇ++ 29 June 2005 07:11 (UTC)

Nationality of Players
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)

POV editor now blocked
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

I reported the IP to WP:ARV. If we ever need to, we can reopen Marksanta's WP:SPI case. The archived case is at Sockpuppet investigations/Marksanta123. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Consensus on Franchise years
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)
 * You can't exclude people from helping to establish consensus, especially on the grounds they might be Yankee fans, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. In addition, you are still block evading, and have been reblocked forwith. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

-I for one would like to include these years, to The Bushranger i think the issue you are not understanding here is that Yankee fans have taken this information out of the page in the past, so to have them vote on something that most likely should not matter to them with the probability of malicous voting would disrupt the integrity of the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.144.0.13 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The PCL franchise and MLB franchise are distinct, much as the Baltimore Orioles of today are not the same as the Orioles of the NL in the 1890's, or the Orioles of the AL in 1901 and 1902, or the minor league franchises that existed in the early 20th century. This matter is closed. As The Bushranger said, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not up for a vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Muboshgu, the only reason this consensus is needed is because Wikipedia is a democracy, according to the edit request page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests if I want to make an edit request I must get the consensus vote. And you seem to still think that the request is to make the Angels MLB and PCL the same, nobody here ever said that, the only thing wanted was to put DISTINCT years so that the confusion is solved and recognition of the name continuity is respected, not anything to do with player history, titles, and such.

As long as you compare two completely different topics as the same then Wikipedia will continue to be wrong in this aspect. Angels PCL name was bought from owner to owner so it still is the same franchise in a different league, just as the Orioles of 1890's are now the Yankees because the Yankees owner at the time bought the team; Orioles of 1890 are not same as today because they became the Yankees before the new Orioles began. Yankees weren't using the name so no need to buy it = no continuity + the Yankees have rights to what the 1890 Orioles accomplished.

It's not that hard to grasp, minor league franchises of 20th century had affiliation with different clubs, your continued reference to the PCL teams had no affiliation besides trades, no call ups are on record, please look; Your taking the PCL's reference as "minor league" as something completely different than was in the past, simple research would show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.107.41 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 4 May 2012‎ (UTC)


 * 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)

173.51.xxx.xxx
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)

Hello users Muboshgu, FisherQueen, and jpgorden, I am somewhat brand new to wikipedia and am mistakenly being taken for a previous user even though my ip address does not start with "173.51" I also wanted to bring up a point that I am a fan of the team page I am trying to edit like many others on here and have noticed after my edits were taken out that the wikipedia user TheBushRanger has made nothing but hindering edits to the Angel baseball page, taking down the re-edits of everyone that is trying to put the Angel name history in the introduction, or simply taking out areas of strictly the "Fan appreciation" section for dubious reasons that could be applied to many areas of the page. It only concerns me because his username is the name of a rival team, so it would be great if someone can look into this because Im sure I would not be the only fan upset with his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.152.111 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Gene Autry...Medal of Honor winner??
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)
 * Even if it's true, it has no relevance to the Angels. I'm removing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links 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)

Requested move 28 April 2017

 * 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: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim → Los Angeles Angels – All of the primary sources no longer have "of Anaheim" in the titles:
 * Official team website "Official Website of the Los Angeles Angels"
 * Official Facebook page "Los Angeles Angels"
 * Official Twitter feed "Los Angeles Angels"

In addition, multiple secondary sources also use "Los Angeles Angels":
 * ESPN
 * MLB.com
 * CBS Sports
 * Fox Sports
 * Associated Press
 * Bleacher Report
 * SB Nation
 * Sports Illustrated

The remaining uses of "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" are Baseball Reference and Google, the latter of which appears to draw from the Wikipedia title. Seems now not only would WP:COMMONNAME apply, and likely has for some time, but even WP:OFFICIALNAME does as well. JonRidinger (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This article and this article from 2013 mentions the agreement that allowed the team to drop "of Anaheim", so it would seem the change occurred for the 2014 season. This was discussed here in 2014 (see "Name Change" above), but no changes made at that time. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the team's official web site should be sufficient. The web site can also be used as a citable source.Orsoni (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It can be, but article titles are based on WP:COMMONNAME, which isn't always reflected in a team's official site. In this case it is, but I've seen several cases where that isn't true. Los Angeles Clippers is a good example...official website now uses "LA Clippers" but most secondary sources call them the "Los Angeles Clippers", which is why the article is titled that way. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but unlike the Clippers, the proposed title here is the WP:COMMONNAME. Indeed, the current title has never really been the common name, but the official one until 2013. This should have been moved a while ago. Complete support. oknazevad (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any official record or announcement of a team name change? If not, I think it it would be better to keep the current name. User:StraightOuttaBoston (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted two links earlier right after my initial nomination list of the secondary sources using "Los Angeles Angels". Both articles are from September 2013: "Angels drop Anaheim from team name" and "Angels Will Finally Be Allowed to Drop Anaheim from Their Team Name". --JonRidinger (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the original premise is not entirely correct when it comes to the official website. Official Team Website still says The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Not to mention places like the Baseball Reference Encyclopedia, Forbes Team financials, Official MLB Shopping. So it's not cut and dry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Using the mobile website, the top of the page still has "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim", but the browser window header says "MLB.com Mobile | Los Angeles Angels". Using the standard version at https://www.mlb.com/angels on the desktop, it says "Official Website of the Los Angeles Angels". Interestingly enough, this link is a press release from March 2017. The title at the top of the page has the full "of Anaheim" name (again with a mobile address), while article text clearly refers to the team as the "Los Angeles Angels" ("The Los Angeles Angels today announced..."). Also, add Yahoo Sports to the list of secondary sources using "Los Angeles Angels".
 * And yes, I mentioned that Baseball-Reference.com still has them as "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" and also noticed the mailing address for the team does too. That may simply be a case of not updating. Remember, an article name change here doesn't necessarily mean there is no longer any usage of the longer name. The current article title should reflect what the subject is referred to most often in secondary sources. Any specific reason why we wouldn't use WP:COMMONNAME given not only all the primary sources but even moreso the secondary sources? --JonRidinger (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I propose that all season articles from 2005–present are moved to "2005 Los Angeles Angels season" and so forth, because common usage seemed to be "Los Angeles Angels" from very early on, and it's easier to move them all instead of trying to figure out when exactly the common usage changed.  ONR  (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move. I object to the notion that "of Anaheim" has been entirely dropped from the team name (as shown above, official usage is split, which it would not be if the team actively renamed itself), but the common name of the team is Los Angeles Angels in most media sources even if the official name isn't. However, unless it can be proven that the official name of the team does not include "of Anaheim", the lede should still include those words.
 * Support per nom and conciseness. This team has had quite a few name changes, and this one seems to settle on the current common name. Randy Kryn 16:00, 30 April 2017 (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.

Interesting - since last year, their home page on MLB.com has been changed to read "THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE LOS ANGELES ANGELS". So it's now unanimous - their official Facebook page, Instagram page, Twitter page and official website all say "Los Angeles Angels". As does MLB.com's list of teams. Might be time to open a conversation about changing the name of the article. SixFourThree (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree
 * Yes, see the beginning of the move discussion above. I listed the website and several social media accounts. The article has already been moved to "Los Angeles Angels" but there is no confirmation the team has formally or legally changed from the official name. Regardless, the clear common name is Los Angeles Angels. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! I was confused because all the internal references in the article (and the titles of associated articles) use the old name.  Will need to start changing those as well.  SixFourThree (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree

I used wayback machine to see when the top banner was changed to "Los Angeles Angels." Turns out it was only changed this year. The last time I saw the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" banner was in March 2017. CrispyCream27 (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's still being used on the mobile site and on some of the official MLB apps (the Ballpark app still uses "of Anaheim") as other editors have noted above. Even so, it's a great example of WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:OFFICIALNAME since most secondary sources (especially broadcasts) haven't been using "of Anaheim" since the official change, even if MLB and the team did and continue to do so in some capacity. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears the name change is official, based on this article from SportsLogos.net. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that a reliable source? I can't tell if it's anything more than a nicely laid out blog. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Until we get multiple sources or one reliable source like the Angels media accounts or AP to confirm this, I think we should lay it out for now and just keep WP:COMMONNAME on the articles like this for now (with the full name at the beginning of the article and clarify they're commonly known as the Los Angeles Angels). The name change most likely happened as evidenced by multiple websites and MLB stylesheets, but there's wasn't any website articles reporting on the change itself except this SportsLogos article.GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Source for name change?
I know this has been debated a lot, but....

The 'Name' entry in the infobox contains:

Los Angeles Angels (2016–present) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (2005–2015)

Do we actually have any source that they changed their name in 2016? (Presumably on the 1 January 2016, if those dates are correct.) The article says that "Los Angeles Angels" was always commonly used, and the lead says that "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" is still the official name. Was there actually a change in 2016, or is that just when we happened to notice that most places were using the shortened name? I think referring to them by either name seems justifiable, but it doesn't seem justifiable to document a specific name change in 2016, if we don't have a source saying that actually happened in any official sense. TSP (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know what's official and what isn't (in regards to the name) but their official site has The official site of the Los Angeles Angels written on the top of the main page.
 * https://www.mlb.com/angels
 * It doesn't say The official site of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We may need to hold off on the official name. I haven't seen a valid source that the Angels legally changed the full official name, just a citation that they could change it. Clearly the common name is Los Angeles Angels and they've started using it on various media platforms, but whether or not they have legally dropped "of Anaheim" remains to be seen. The MLB Ballpark app I use still calls them "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim". I'd say, just leave the full name until we have a more definitive source that clearly states the Angels did change the full name instead of could change the name. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The Franchise section needs to change or this article is in violation of a problematic lead. The lead summarizes the body and the body says they are officially still the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. I don't care which is fixed, the lead or the body, but they cannot remain in opposition to each other. Find some some sources that say the Angels have officially changed their name and say that in the body or change the lead. You can't keep them the way they are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The legal name of the team in court cases is listed as "Angels Baseball, LP". "Los Angeles Angels of Anheim" was their "official name", but no record that it was a legal name. It seems the team quietly changed, but as has already been pointed out in previous discussion, the primary sources clearly indicate the official name, or at least the primary marketed name, is "Los Angeles Angels", which is reflected in most secondary sources too. While the Franchise History section could use some work, the lead is appropriate. The details about the name changes belong in the body of the article and there's no definitive evidence that the "of Anaheim" has any legal standing, or ever did, nor is there definitive proof that the team is "officially known as" the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. A similar case happened with the LA Clippers, who quietly became the "LA Clippers" instead of the "Los Angeles Clippers". The difference there was that most secondary sources (especially the AP) continue to call them the "Los Angeles Clippers", which is why the article wasn't moved. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That section on Franchise does not support the lead and in fact denies it as not having been signed. The infobox on date on official change is also incorrect. I don't really care which term gets used, but it must be consistent and sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The dates in the infobox (2016) are from a few articles that mentioned it as having occurred in 2016, based on changes to all of the Angels social media pages and their website (see this). It wasn't something the team really announced or made any kind of big deal about; they just did it. Whether or not they signed the lease isn't totally clear, but they obviously changed and that's when the sources changed: between the 2015 and 2016 seasons. The history section definitely has issues with clarity, mostly because it seems to have been written as some kind of compromise, but the current "Los Angeles Angels" name has been discussed multiple times here. The lead doesn't talk about the name changes, it simply mentions the current name, along with a little about the origin of the "Angels" name. The lead itself needs expansion anyway. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You have to remember that the lead is supposed to tell us nothing new at all. It only summarizes facts presented in the body. That franchise section makes it unclear what the official name of the team is. It says "the deal was never finalized" and things like "most official sources" but obviously not all. That also means the infobox that tells our readers when the name changed, could very well be wrong. Because of this I would propose the lead say: The Los Angeles Angels (or Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim) are an American... That leaves things open to debate just as the team and city have left us not knowing the truth. The city of Anaheim seems to call them the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" or simply "Angels Baseball" so some sort of compromise may have been reached we know nothing about. But we are supposed to present facts to our readers and we don't know for a fact what the team name is, and we don't know for a fact that if it changed that it changed in 2016. It's all hazy and the lead and infobox make it sound like it's crystal clear. That is not kosher to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons link
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)SportsFan007
 * 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)

Name Change
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)SixFourThree
 * On MLB.com, it says "THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE LOS ANGELES ANGELS OF ANAHEIM". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)SixFourThree
 * And FWIW, the MLB team list calls them "Los Angeles Angels". Odd. SixFourThree (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree

This is completely misleading -- and based on this LA Times article from 2013 https://www.reddit.com/r/angelsbaseball/comments/1lg78p/los_angeles_angels_of_anaheim_could_be_no_more/, which uses phrases such as

>"Under the proposed deal"

and

>"Under the new deal, Moreno **could** simply call his team the Los Angeles Angels."

The linked souce, Anaheim*.com* is not the official Anaheim website, which is Anaheim*.net* http://web.archive.org/web/20130907090843/http://www.anaheim.com/attractions/guides/item/10201-city-council-approves-new-lease-for-angels-keeps-team-in-town-through-2019-angels-can-drop-anaheim-from-their-name

Anaheim.com was a tourist advertising site in 2013.

Also, the discussed lease will last through 2018 at a minimum based on this article

http://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/la-sp-angels-anaheim-stadium-20160927-snap-story.html

Which a later article says they will pass on and stay until 2029 http://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/la-sp-angels-stadium-lease-20170218-story.html

These pages on Angels.com still use the "Of Anaheim" moniker

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/sponsorship/index.jsp

http://mlb.mlb.com/ana/fan_forum/the-halo-way/

Here's an OCregister article from 2015 saying the name had been in place for 10 years at the time http://www.ocregister.com/2015/01/07/los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim-10-years-later-how-big-of-a-deal-was-the-name-change/, which would confirm that the name wasn't discarded in 2013.

The original name change was posted in a press release http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20050103&content_id=926747&vkey=pr_ana&fext=.jsp&c_id=ana which has not been done with dropping "Of Anaheim".


 * 1) AKA ALL OF THIS IS BULLSHIT, THEY HAVEN'T DROPPED "OF ANAHEIM"

I'll leave you with this quote from OCregister

>Now, new pressure has built up over stadium-lease negotiations. In 2013, the City Council initially approved a memorandum of understanding that would allow the team to strip the “of Anaheim” from its name, as well as other financial arrangements.

>**Follow-up negotiations, however, haven’t happened – and the Angels have threatened to leave Anaheim.**

>“If they decide to move elsewhere, having changed their name a decade ago will make it easier,” Ganis said.

Laaabaseball (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

I agree that the move should have happened, as it *is* the common name, however, since there is no official confirmation that the name has been changed, it should still be listed with such verbage as "Officially the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" at the top of the article. Laaabaseball (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok I reverted some edits that dropped the "Commonly known as Los Angeles Angels" that were brought on by this article http://news.sportslogos.net/2017/06/28/of-anaheim-no-more-los-angeles-angels-officially-changed-name/ which has NO SOURCES. Author said on Twitter that they cannot post the screenshot of their "source" https://twitter.com/sportslogosnet/status/880250190598373376. I don't think Wikipedia allows unsourced speculation as fact in articles Laaabaseball (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok I just called the front office and they say it is the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim so, I'm sorry

"LAA" is now commonly seen in the stadium and on merchandise.Truthiness (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Rivals
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)
 * , agreed. I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Rendon
He signed a contract with the team. Anthony Rendon Elijahandskip (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)

Name in Franchise history section
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)
 * 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)
 * I just want to be consistent, since the rest of the article has changed the name to remove "of Anaheim". Also, the previous discussions and  seem to show that the team is now the "Los Angeles Angels". Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)