Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles Angels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

[edit]

Hello I just wanted to know I changed the headline to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim can someone please change the title to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim because I called the front office and they said it was Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Please do not be angry. Thanks

Hello, IPv6 editor. What you did qualifies as original research, so it isn't verifiable and can't be used on article pages. O.N.R. (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:4F40:40:502D:9596:352B:CA96 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim players has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim players has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Natg 19 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name in infobox

[edit]

It seems to me that the team name should be merged in the infobox as "Los Angeles Angels (1961–1965, 2016-present)" instead of having two separate lines. Similar to the LA Rams' infobox, "Los Angeles Rams (1946–1994, 2016–present)" Orange2001 ABC (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angels in the Outfield

[edit]

The film featured the California Angels, I believe this is worth mentioning in the Popular Culture section 2600:4041:4A2:8F00:E160:28CB:ED83:9652 (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 67.150.0.30 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The team primary logo is the same as the cap logo you have here. The Angels you list is the Jersey script. 142.198.55.158 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based in the "Greater Los Angeles Area"

[edit]

The opening describing the Angels as based in the "Greater Los Angeles" area is unnecessarily broad and is frankly, silly. The team is based in Orange County, specifically Anaheim, and for the average reader, that's the information that is pertinent. The Greater Los Angeles area covers a wide berth, and for the average reader, especially who lives outside of said area and may have no frame of reference, this broad category is not helpful. Frankly, it should just open with stating that the team is based in Anaheim, but since the opening of the article is written in a way to address where the team has played since 1966, the next best option is to go with the second-most specific description, which is Orange County.

As an example, the Arizona Diamondbacks are based in Phoenix, and their page states as such. It doesn't say "based in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area." The only other baseball team page that has that level of vagueness with its location is the Texas Rangers, and frankly that is silly too. It's almost as if Arte Moreno himself wrote the opening in a way to try and make the team name seem more logical despite the team not being based in Los Angeles proper.

The "Greater Los Angeles Area" is a silly, unnecessarily broad description of where the team is based. It should open with either stating the team is based in Anaheim, or, to make it flow with how the opening paragraph is currently written, in Orange County. 156.20.36.130 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To simply address all your points teams are said to be based in the metro areas based on context. As you said the Rangers (along with the Rays & Braves) are all MLB teams mentioned to be based in a metro area as they are not within the city limits that they're named after. Same with the Angels. This isn't restricted to MLB teams either. Many NFL franchises/teams are said to be based in their metro area to provide context to the reader who may expect them to be within the city they're named after. The Rams and Chargers are both named after the city Los Angeles and are in it's media market, but however play thier home games and are based in Inglewood, CA; same with the LA CLippers now in the NBA. There's a reason the metro areas are in the opening sentence. Information about the city they're based in is within the article and infoboxes. There shouldn't be a major issue here unless a general consensus says otherwise. 2601:189:4082:D9A0:2D74:C140:DFB4:5B05 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Greater Los Angeles" to "Anaheim"

[edit]

Following up on the above, I believe the opening should be changed. I agree with 156.20.36.130 that it's unnecessary to depict the Angels as being based in Greater Los Angeles as opposed to Anaheim. While it's true that other teams are described as belonging to metro areas, that is due to the unique circumstances they are placed in. It's common knowledge that the Angels represent Anaheim, and I think changing the opening to say "Anaheim" would be a better reflection of this, though to better flow with the opening paragraph, it should probably be "Orange County." I have tried to make changes to the article accordingly, but Orange2001 ABC has consistently reverted my edits. I have left messages on his talk page and asked him to talk about the edits, but he has repeatedly ignored my requests to discuss the matter. So I'll bring it up here: why should the opening not be changed? Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orange2001 ABC, Wikipedia:Communication is required. This slow edit war is not acceptable.
As far as what to do from here, if a consensus cannot be worked out, I will start an WP:RFC with three choices: (1) Greater LA area, (2) Orange County, (3) Anaheim. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The team is called the "Los Angeles" Angels and the opening sentence explains that they play in the Greater LA area. At the bottom of the first paragraph, it is detailed that they play in Anaheim, so there is no point in mentioning "Anaheim" twice as it would be redundant. Orange2001 ABC (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been nice if you had just said so in the first place, but whatever. Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: How to indicate team location in the first sentence

[edit]

How should the team's location be indicated at the end of the first sentence?

Left guide (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mk8mlyb, Muboshgu, Orange2001 ABC, 156.20.36.130, and 2601:189:4082:D9A0:2D74:C140:DFB4:5B05: pinging all participants from the related lead-up discussions above Left guide (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

[edit]
  • Option C Thier own website says Angel Stadium 2000 Gene Autry Way Anaheim, CA 92806 (714) 940-2000 and we just link to our own Anaheim article.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C per MOS:FIRST - The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader precisely where the team is based. When a nonspecialist reader clicks through to the Greater Los Angeles area, there is no information there stating where this team is based, as opposed to Anaheim, California, where it clearly states in the lead paragraph the Angels are based there. The lead sentence should be simple, informative and give our nonspecialist readers the precise location where this team is based. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Per WP:ASTONISH, the lead should not shock the reader. With "Los Angeles" in the name, it should be explained how it's related to LA. That can be done either before or in the same sentence as any mentions of either Orange County or Anaheim. Not many outside of California will be familiar with Orange County.—Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There unofficially seems to be precedence for this in the first sentence of articles like New York Jets, New York Giants, and San Francisco 49ers, where the teams play in cities other than that which they are named for. Left guide (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bagumba. Not everyone knows that Orange County or Anaheim is in the LA area, which is part of why the Angels changed their name back to the Los Angeles Angels. The main point is a reader shouldn't have to go to a different article to find out that Anaheim and/or Orange County is part of the Greater LA area. The way the Los Angeles Rams page is worded works just fine. It mentions the team is based in Greater LA, but also that their home stadium is in Inglewood. Another option would be to mention the Angels "are based in Anaheim, California, part of the Greater Los Angeles area" or something similar. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Nobody outside of Southern California knows about "Orange County" or "Anaheim" and the team itself is called the "Los Angeles" Angels, so it only makes sense that this be explained right off bat in the first sentence by stating that they are in the greater LA area. The last sentence of the first paragraph details that they play in Anaheim, CA. As it's been said before, many professional sports teams do not play in the actual city that they are named after as they represent a greater metro area. It seems to me that many people who live in LA/OC are emotional about the Angels "LA" name (whether in favor or against it), but the Wikipedia article should not be based on emotion but on facts, which is why I vote for leaving it as "Greater Los Angeles area," as their official name is the Los Angeles Angels. Orange2001 ABC (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could explain that the owner thought he could trick people into thinking an orange county team was in los angeles by changing the name, though everyone from los angeles actually still calls them the anaheim angels. Spanneraol (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A counterexample: the Florida Panthers are described as belonging in the "Miami metropolitan area". Not the state of Florida, but Miami. Similarly, the Arizona Diamondbacks article states that the team belongs in Phoenix. The Angels article should follow similarly and say where the team belongs, which is Orange County, or Anaheim. If the readers don't know about those places, they could click the link provided and read those articles to learn. It would fit with the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to spread knowledge. I will state that if a compromise is possible, I will accept it. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mk8mlyb: There's actually a compromise idea floated above by JonRidinger in the vein of …based in Anaheim, California, part of the Greater Los Angeles area. Left guide (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. I think that's a pretty good solution and I'm for it. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's way overdoing it. We already state that Angel Stadium is in Anaheim, California, in the first paragraph. The current state is general consensus across all major league sports. This is simply a sentiment by people who are proud of their city representation and miss that it used to be called Anaheim Angels. Wamalotpark (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm from St Louis. The fact the Angels are based in Anaheim is one of their major selling points. It's a part of their identity. Whereas with the Los Angeles Rams, they were just looking for a stadium to play in. Mk8mlyb (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current state is general consensus across all major league sports: The New York Jets, New York Giants, San Francisco 49ers and Los Angeles Clippers pages all make reference to the location in their name, though they don't play in that city. —Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look at "Los Angeles Clippers", that is because the city is in the name but they play outside city limits. The same thing is applied currently for the "Los Angeles Angels".
You saying -- "The fact the Angels are based in Anaheim is one of their major selling points. It's a part of their identity. Whereas with the Los Angeles Rams, they were just looking for a stadium to play in." -- is opinion and narrative based. In fact, they changed to Los Angeles to make that one of their major selling points. Just as @Orange2001 ABC stated, we can't let emotions take the lead here. The lead in the Anaheim Ducks article uses "Anaheim, California" because Anaheim is in the official name. Wamalotpark (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you are ok with "Greater Los Angeles" in the lead sentence. Right? —Bagumba (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am okay with it in its current state. Wamalotpark (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a bizarre emphasis on their location if they are described as being "…based in Anaheim, California, part of the Greater Los Angeles area." This needs to be kept simple. Again, their official team name is "Los Angeles" so having "Greater LA" would explain this and the specific city they play in (Anaheim) is already mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. I don't see a need to change the first sentence. Orange2001 ABC (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wamalotpark (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it's not being kept simple? The readers will clearly understand the meaning of the opening and it makes sense. And the point I made about Anaheim being their selling point is misconstrued. It's about the cultural outlook of the team. The owner may have changed the name, but the team still heavily markets to Anaheim. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stating both locations in the first sentence is not simple in my opinion. Also, your point still doesn't make sense to me. "Cultural outlook" and marketing targets are not good arguments to me. Wamalotpark (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the owner may have changed the name, but the team still identifies with Anaheim in a lot of ways. Take their ballpark, for example. It's called "Angel Stadium in Anaheim" and not just "Angel Stadium". Even when they changed their name from "Anaheim Angels", the team was named the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim". That's just a couple of examples. With the other teams, like the New York Giants, they don't have the same situation. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't heard a convincing argument on how changing the location in the opening sentence would improve the article. The way it's currently written follows a precedent set forth by other sport franchises that also play in different cities than the metro areas they represent on their official team name as previously mentioned by others in this discussion. Also, the current opening sentence is simple and straight-forward especially for any reader who wouldn't know anything about the Angels or their location (as it should be); adding "based in Anaheim, California, part of the Greater Los Angeles area" in the first sentence would only add unnecessary detail and provide an unusual emphasis on their location. Again, the last sentence of the first paragraph already mentions that they play in Anaheim - why mention it again?
You appear to have a personal motive (i.e., emotion) for wanting to change their location, and your arguments have been subjective and based on opinion. For example, you stated that "the team still heavily markets to Anaheim" when in reality they market to the entire LA metro area, hence their name change. Also, you stated that Anaheim is "part of their identity" but the fact is their original name was LA Angels and were founded in Los Angeles; and even after they moved to Anaheim in 1966, they changed their name to California Angels (not Anaheim Angels) for the purpose of wanting to market to a broader area than just Anaheim. They only changed their name to Anaheim Angels in the late 1990s under Disney ownership to help promote tourism for Disneyland, but that's another conversation. Under current owner Arte Moreno, the team has tried to get away from "Anaheim" and focus more on "Los Angeles" to increase their local fanbase and their international reach. And the only reason that they were called "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" was due to contractual obligation with the city of Anaheim - they immediately dropped "of Anaheim" once that obligation was no longer required.
Unless you can provide a different and convincing argument, then I feel like we're just going in circles without you being able to provide a good reason why altering the opening sentence would improve the article. Orange2001 ABC (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just doing what I think is right. The team won the World Series in 2002 as the "Anaheim Angels" and every article about Anaheim states that the Angels belong in Anaheim. It's true that they market to the entire LA area, but Anaheim is their biggest focus. I'm not sure you can prove that they only changed the name to Anaheim Angels because of Disney aside from a Wikipedia article. Regardless, they were known as the Anaheim Angels during that time. What exactly would you deem a convincing argument? Just curious. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All things equal, there is another argument for why the opening should be changed. Almost every article on Wikipedia about Anaheim states that the Angels are one of their teams. It would be consistent with Wikipedia to also state this in this article, which also states the team's long history with the city, dating back to 1966. The team celebrated its World Series victory in 2002 at Disneyland in Anaheim. That's the kind of cultural history I'm talking about. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Angeles_Angels&oldid=1278623939"