Talk:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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:

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 [1] 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". [2] --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,[3] 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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tikiwont 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Categories: Talk archives