Talk:Los Angeles Rams

Cleveland Rams merger

Someone put a Merge template on Cleveland Rams last month, but they didn't start the discussion here. Well, I'll do it.

It is clear to me that the Cleveland Rams, the Los Angeles Rams, and the St. Louis Rams, all should be together in one article. Why? They are one franchise and one team that share all the same team records. The St. Louis Rams count the NFL championship in 1945 as theirs, so they can't be a team that just came into existence in 1995. All three articles should be merged here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I second this and agree with all of Husky's points. Same franchise all along.Frank12 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it. Anyone searching for information on the St. Louis Rams is probably not interested in their history in Los Angeles. Makes much more sense to keep all articles separate. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone searching for information on the St. Louis Rams is probably not interested in their history in Los Angeles

• First of all, that statement is completely unsubstantiated, and I personally believe that the opposite is true. Many fans are interested in their teams' histories.
• Secondly, even if it was true, so what? Do we restrict information from articles because we don't think someone will be interested in it? Most articles are going to have some sections that garner more interest than others. Shall we delete those sections that we suspect are not of much "interest"?
• Thirdly, even if this assertion is true, what harm is rendered from merging? Anyone looking for "Cleveland Rams" will get here with a redirect.

HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"The first professional American football team to have a logo on their helmets"

This statement is untrue. At least one other professional team had them first; the American Football League's Boston Shamrocks, who wore shamrocks painted on their helmets in 1936 (pictured [1] on ESPN writer Paul Lukas's blog[2]). Not in any way to minimize Fred Gehrke's contribution, but it would be more accurate to say that the Clevaland Rams were "the first NFL team to have a logo on their helmets", as this St Louis Post-Dispatch article does: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/rams-uniform-change-likely/article_0092f450-465f-5a4f-b15f-9a7355c89dd4.html I'm going to make that change. SixFourThree (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)SixFourThree

NFL Western Championship Years

I added four additional NFL Western Championships that were listed on the Pro Football Hall of Fame page for the Rams (1945, 1949, 1950, 1951). I don't see a way to add a citation within the Infobox template, but here is where the info came from: http://www.profootballhof.com/teams/st.-louis-rams/team-facts

AMCoop (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed

Not sure if you have notices, but someone changed St. Louis to Los Angeles. I may not be a sports fan, but moving to Los Angeles was a consideration by St. Louis, and they have not yet moved. Donny (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just changed. Forget what I said. Donny (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles

It has come to my attention that past midnight, the St. Louis Rams may become the Los Angeles Rams. How will we handle this transition? Buffaboy ^talk 23:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suspect that we'd have to get official word from the Rams themselves as to when they become the L.A. Rams again. CrashUnderride 01:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's actually on their front page. They want to rub it in for STL. Buffaboy ^talk 04:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/687086537662664704 Via tweet from Adam Schefter, it's official. Los Angeles Rams. JCW555 (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Page suggestion

Hey, I know nothing of football and the protocol for their articles on Wikipedia, but why not do what we do with NHL teams and create a separate article for the relocated team? For example, the Atlanta Thrashers existed from 1999-2011. In 2011, they relocated to Winnipeg to become the Winnipeg Jets. Instead of converting the Atlanta article into the Winnipeg team, we have a new one for Winnipeg. Just a thought. Spilia4 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No. General consensus on the hockey articles is different than either the baseball articles or the football articles. For the baseball articles: Brooklyn Dodgers currently redirects to History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, St. Louis Browns currently redirects to History of the St. Louis Browns, Washington Senators (1901–60) redirects to History of the Washington Senators (1901–60), Philadelphia Athletics redirects to History of the Philadelphia Athletics, and Boston Braves (baseball) redirects to History of the Boston Braves. And here on the NFL articles it followed the same pattern as the baseball articles, Houston Oilers redirects to History of the Houston Oilers, Portsmouth Spartans redirects to History of the Portsmouth Spartans, and so on. Los Angeles Rams also historically redirected to History of the Los Angeles Rams. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

L.A. approval and past tense

Isn't it a bit premature to refer to the StL Rams in the past tense? I mean, the league's approval vote was only made public an hour ago. We don't yet know where they will be playing next season.--Chimino (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The NFL and ESPN have both confirmed that the Los Angeles Rams will play at the LA Coliseum next year. The St. Louis Rams are as good as dead. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I think it is an alright option until the official LA name is unveiled. While most think they'll probably go back to "Los Angeles Rams," they could even be the "California Rams" or something. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

According to the NFL website, they'll be the Los Angeles Rams. http://www.nfl.com/teams/losangelesrams/roster?team=RAM JCW555 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2016

• St. Louis Rams → Los Angeles Rams
• History of the St. Louis Rams → History of the Los Angeles Rams
• History of the Los Angeles Rams → History of the Los Angeles Rams (1946–1994)

– As someone who has admin permission, I'm prepared to move this and all sub pages to Los Angeles Rams, based on the relocation announcement by the NFL. I assume this would be an uncontroversial WP:SNOW based on previous cases and precedent involving team relocations within the big 4 major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada. The issue I have is what to do with History of the Los Angeles Rams (which only details the team's history in LA from 1946 to 1994) and History of the St. Louis Rams (which provides an overview for the team's entire history from its days in Cleveland). I think the latter overview article should be moved into the former, leaving the History of the St. Louis Rams spot to be rewritten to just focus on the team's time in STL. Furthermore, the current History of the Los Angeles Rams should probably be moved to History of the Los Angeles Rams (1946–1994) as a detailed article for just the first era in LA. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds entirely reasonable to me. I support it. CrashUnderride 03:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I get it, but it may be worth waiting just a short time more. If we want to be proper and official about all this, then I oppose, but only for the time being. The NFL owners have voted, but I don't know that the Rams have yet made any official moves, like legally reincorporating under a new name. Until such a thing happens, the name of the company would still be "St. Louis Rams." Again, we want to be proper. Rowsdower45 (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move discussions such as this one usually take seven days (but could take longer if neceesary). I'm not sure what a "short time more" would entail. I was not expecting a definite consensus about what to do with these articles overnight. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I can understand that the company has not legally changed their name of the organization, but the NFL seems to regard the team officially as the Los Angeles Rams. --204.106.251.214 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That link exists because the NFL still has historical data on their website for the old LA Rams. It's a redirect link to the regular team page, which is still designated as St. Louis (note the "STL" in the hyperlink).Rowsdower45 (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Rams-to-Return-to-Los-Angeles/802b4e16-671e-4864-97b6-943115cdc4cf The Rams official website has also confirmed the move. JCW555 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Official? Look at their website. They are back to LA. Therefore, I personally see no problem with it moving now. CrashUnderride 03:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the website. It's called "StLouisRams.com." Rowsdower45 (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nfl.com/teams/losangelesrams/roster?team=RAM NFL has confirmed the name change to Los Angeles Rams on their website.

As I said above, that's a redirect link for historical info on the Rams elsewhere on NFL.com. Look at this page, for instance. That's the Rams' 1987 schedule and results, where they're designated as "RAM" because they were in LA. The Rams' official page still says "St. Louis" and the hyperlink still ends in STL. All hyperlinks in the NFL.com article end in STL and direct to a page titled "St. Louis Rams." Rowsdower45 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I support you making the go ahead and to do it. The reason is because the NFL has already listed them now as the Los Angeles Rams, and the St. Louis Rams official website has confirmed its a done deal. I am not good at source linking but here's my sources Dr. Pizza (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• As I originally stated, I get that moving STL Rams to LA Rams would eventually be non-controversial, once it becomes official. Could someone address my thoughts about what to do with those history articles? Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Wait a bit / Conditional Oppose on moving the team, Oppose on moving the history subarticles at least for now. Notably, it's not clear if the new team will be seen as a seamless continuation or as a "new team". It is at least possible this will be a situation similar to the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals where the "St. Louis Rams" article stays where it is, and a new article is created for "Los Angeles Rams"; while I suspect that won't happen, it'll be easier to tell in a week or so. For the "History" pages, it seems more reasonable to keep them where they are; "History of the St. Louis Rams" will cover 1994-2016, and "History of the Los Angeles Rams" will cover both 1946-1994 & 2016-???. (You can see something similar with, say, History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, which covers only the time they were in Brooklyn, not LA.) SnowFire (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until there is more concrete information, like a sources saying the team has a specific place to play in LA in the coming season, that they will be calling themselves the LA Rams, etc. Current reports are vague about the venue for the 16 season, and they could change their name (see Baltimore Ravens), or pick another geography (California Rams? who knows) Fitnr 03:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nfl.com/teams/losangelesrams/roster?team=RAM The NFL website lists the team under "Los Angeles Rams" and (the former) St. Louis Rams website says that the team is moving to LA and will play there for the 2016 NFL season. http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Rams-to-Return-to-Los-Angeles/802b4e16-671e-4864-97b6-943115cdc4cf.

A listing on the NFL page is a good start, but I don't think they should rightfully described as the LA Rams if they don't have a solid deal to play somewhere in LA in the fall. It's totally possible (although unlikely) that they get shut out of the Rose Bowl and other stadiums and end up playing in St Louis for one more season. Fitnr 17:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, that's a redirect link for historical info on the Rams elsewhere on NFL.com. Look at this page, for instance. That's the Rams' 1987 schedule and results, where they're designated as "RAM" because they were in LA. The Rams' official page still says "St. Louis" and the hyperlink still ends in STL. All hyperlinks in the NFL.com article end in STL and direct to a page titled "St. Louis Rams." Rowsdower45 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Full support as Roger Goodell and even the NFL website has referred to this new team as the "Los Angeles Rams." Buffaboy ^talk 04:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose – instead, there needs to be a WP:SPLIT: an article on the Los Angeles Rams (the more recent, or both incarnations), and a separate article on the St. Louis Rams. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This makes sense. The two teams have different histories, the LA Rams and the St. Louis Rams are two completely different teams. I also support Indianapolis Colts and Baltimore Colts becoming two different articles. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

They are the EXACT same teams. That's like saying the Oakland Raiders and the LA Raiders are two different teams. The Indianapolis Colts and Baltimore Colts are the same team also!!! CrashUnderride 04:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing the words "franchise" and "team". The Oakland Raiders and the LA Raiders were the same team as they completely retained all of the history of the team, while retaining its fan base in its entirety. The former Baltimore Colts players and fans completely disowbed the Colts franchise after the move to Indianapolis. The Indianapolis Colts never recognized the achievements of the Baltimore Colts, nor did they retire any of the great Baltimore Colts' player's jerseys. Baltimore Colts fans never rooted for the Indianapolis Colts. The LA Rams fans were never St. Louis Rams fans and vice versa. The LA Rams are unlikely to openly celebrate the achievements of the St. Louis Rams, just as the St. Louis Rams did not honor the achievements of the LA Rams. Famous LA Rams players like Deacon Jones and Merlin Olsen saw the St. Louis Rams and LA Rams as being two completely different teams with seperate histories and sperate fan bases, despite being the same franchise. It makes no sense to confuse readers by conflating the St. Louis Rams with the LA Rams. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It makes no sense to deny the existence of a team that existed for over a decade: it warrants its own article. And, in fact, the Baltimore Colts have a separate article: History of the Baltimore Colts, as do the St. Louis Cardinals: History of the St. Louis Cardinals (NFL). It's possible that there should be a History of the St. Louis Rams article, rather than a separate St. Louis Rams article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Meh – this issue is complicated, but there shouldn't be a "quick" move: this needs more discussion to figure out exactly how to handle it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: For the History page, only one is needed. The history of the team includes their time in Cleveland as well as their first L.A. incarnation and the St. Louis era. The team has just one history. Compare History of the Oakland Raiders.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There are already separate pages for the histories of the LA Rams and the St. Louis Rams, so your proposal would involve deleting a page. The Oakland Raiders and LA Raiders retained their history, fan base and loyalty of their former players in their entirety. St. Louis Rams fans aren't suddenly going to become LA Rams fans, just as old LA Rams fans didn't become St. Louis Rams fans. The old LA Rams players never recognized them as being the same teams. Deacon Jones saw the LA Rams and St. Louis Rams as being completely separate teams. There is a difference between the words "team" and "franchise". ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes, the Rams are the same franchise that they've always been, but the St. Louis version and the Los Angeles version are different teams. We shouldn't be merging things together just because they share the same franchise link. Consider the case of Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals from baseball, Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder from basketball, or Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes from hockey. Each has more than enough content to form its own page. Per WP:SPLIT, we don't want our NFL team articles becoming too large. We could easily make St. Louis Rams and Los Angeles Rams exist fine as stand-alone pages. A split based along city lines makes enough sense so the pages will be adequately sized. Also, bundling up all the St. Louis aspects and all the Los Angeles aspects of the franchise into the same page just seems confusing from a reader standpoint. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 04:55, January 13, 2016 (UTC)
• Support moving the main team page, oppose moving the histories, and wait a bit on renaming the current LA Rams history article. The St. Louis Rams are now officially the LA Rams, and so that move needs to be done, but the histories in each city should be kept separate. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Split split the StLRams history article into a History of the St. Louis Rams (1995-2025) and History of the Los Angeles Rams (from formation to current) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • MOVE the History of the Los Angeles Rams → History of the Los Angeles Rams (1946–1994) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason for there to be two history pages for the LA Rams. There should be one page for the St. Louis Rams and one for the LA Rams. ParkH.Davis (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Give it some time. We normally go by common usage, not by crystal ball, futures, predictions, official proclamations, etc. Why the rush? And consider the separate page idea. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

People are going to be flooding this page for information. THis is basically a news event and we should treat it like so. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• To the People: The current Cleveland Browns are a reincarnation and the Baltimore Ravens are the succession of the original Browns, the History of the Cleveland Browns is kept together with the new incarnation team so we should do the same with the Rams because is legally running with the same franchise license both in Los Angeles and Saint Louis, Missouri. Leo Bonilla (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Baltimore Ravens were an expansion team that inherited the then defunct Cleveland Browns assets. The Ravens and the Browns are two different franchises with zero ties to each other. It would be more appropriate to treat the Ravens as a continuation of the Baltimore Colts as opposed to a continuation of the Cleveland Browns. There is a difference between "team" and "franchise". ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: If the history is split by city, then why not also a separate page of History of the Cleveland Rams? Same logic applies. It is one team having played in three different cities, with a single history. Players, coaches, personnel, colors, logo all moved with the team. If anything, the existing pages should be merged.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  There already is a History of the Cleveland Rams article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. In the case of the Browns, doesn't the NFL consider the "new" Cleveland team to have "adopted" the old team's records? In that case, split pages are appropriate. Here, though, it's one team bouncing back and forth between cities, so it should have one page. But, it shouldn't be moved until the team actually moves to LA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It should be handled in the same matter as the pages involving the Nationals, Thunder, Jets, and any other team that has moved in the last 10 Years. What I can say is there should be a History of the Los Angeles Rams (1946-1994) page to draw a distinction between what we have now and what we had during those years.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  10 years is an arbitrary measure. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Most people would want to find the main page about the franchise at Los Angeles Rams pretty soon. The pages about the history could be handled in different ways. But the history about the St. Louis years should probably be at History of the St. Louis Rams, and if there still should be an article about the entire history of the franchise it should probably move to History of the Los Angeles Rams. Boivie (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. We need to wait until it's official that the name will be Los Angeles Rams. We can't assume anything. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support for moving St. Louis Rams to Los Angeles Rams. St. Louis media, including the Post-Dispatch, is reporting that the Rams are gone. The team has their notification announcement on their official site. (They can't switch sites to losangelesrams.com or larams.com yet as there are squatters on those domains.) Goodell referred to the team as the Los Angeles Rams while making the official announcement at his media address. There's also the infamous website work at NFL.com where they've quietly copied the Rams info (roster, stats, coaches, etc.) over to the Los Angeles Rams in anticipation of an official switch on the site. And the NFL Network has referred to the team as the Los Angeles Rams during their reporting. I think there is plenty enough to make the decision on moving the article. Playhouse76 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose moving the histories as suggested. There should remain two articles: History of the Los Angeles Rams and History of the St. Louis Rams. The LA Rams history from 2016 on can be added to the Los Angeles history article, as well as a brief St. Louis heading that directs people to the St. Louis history article. That matches what is done for other teams. If needed, History of the St. Louis Rams can move to History of the St. Louis Rams (1995-2015). Playhouse76 (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose moving the histories. They should be their own separate articles, one covering the LA Rams and the other covering their time in St. Louis. Grand Armor (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment to admins. Apparently many editors here seem to be not familiar with the Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and the attribution process. My basic goal in my proposal to move History of the St. Louis Rams to History of the Los Angeles Rams is to preserve the page history of the primary article that currently provides an overview for the team's entire history from its days in Cleveland. Then the pages can be restructured as to whatever people see fit, and, as a stated above, the History of the St. Louis Rams spot can be converted from a resulting redirect to a new article that just focuses on the team's time in St. Louis. Otherwise, there is likely going to be lots of copying back and forth between the two pages without the proper attribution. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There are already two seperate history pages. There is no need for any articles to be merged. ParkH.Davis (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - prior to this move, the history page contained all the history including previous names. I see no reason why this should change. If any subsection of that history is important enough and/or has enough info to warrant being split from that article then that can be done later - but the name of the main History article should change. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There already two separate articles for the histories of the St. Louis Rams and the LA Rams. ParkH.Davis (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Wikipedia rules, and standard usage, make me think that a move is the best option. It's the same team. The name and location changed. That's it. Keeping the old edit history is important too. The history page could be split, but I'm not sure why they're split already anyway. Wilsonbiggs 13:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It's the same team, you don't have a separate history page for each location on other teams. Move everything to LA Rams. 159.140.254.107 (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many pages in which separate teams from the same franchise has separate history pages. Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals from baseball, Baltimore Colts and Indianapolis Colts from football, Brooklyn Dodgers and Los Angeles Dodgers from baseball, Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder from basketball, and Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes from hockey. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - There should be two different history pages, as they are two different teams, despite being the same franchise. There is a difference between the words "team" and "franchise". ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • More like a distinction without a difference, although I noticed that you're changing all the references to "team" in the article to "franchise". SixFourThree (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree
    • There is a difference though, the words "team" and "franchise" refer to different entities. I have only changed where it is appropriate for there to be change. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Whatever is decided here should also be the same for other NFL teams in similar scenarios (Baltimore for the Colts, Chicago & St. Louis for the Cardinals, Los Angeles for the Raiders and Chargers, Boston for the Patriots, etc.) Tom Danson (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Raiders and Patriots are different from the other cases which you cited as they are widely seen as being continuous teams with continuous fan bases and continuous histories. The Baltimore Colts and the Indianapolis Colts, on the other hand, are widely seen as being different teams with different fan bases and different histories despite the fact they are technically the same franchise. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Passionately Support - I agree with Zzyzx11. To delay would only be pushing off the inevitable. The team is now in LA. End of Story. Making separate pages for the histories of the first LA Rams and the St Louis team seems to be a very rational way to solve the issues here. The only comment I would make would be to keep the History of the St. Louis Rams page as is, rename the original History of the Los Angeles Rams page as suggested, and the new reincarnation deosn't really need a history page for a while, as whatever happens in the near future will be in the history section of the team page.Jdavi333 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not just keep as it is right now? There is no need to rename or move any of the history pages. There is already one for the St. Louis Rams and one for the Los Angeles Rams. The current LA Rams are the exact same team as the old LA Rams, it would make no sense for there to be two history pages for one team. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support the plan in general, although I would combine the two history pages into one and redirect History of the St. Louis Rams to the relevant section in the larger history page. I don't think there's a need for two articles. SixFourThree (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree

Why not just improve upon the pages that already exist? There is no reason to merge the history pages. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You said it above: "it would make no sense for there to be two history pages for one team". The Rams are the Rams are the Rams - all one team. One complete article to cover its entire history.

You're confusing the word "team" with the word "franchise". The LA Rams and the St. Louis Rams are separate teams just like the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals from baseball, Baltimore Colts and Indianapolis Colts from football, Brooklyn Dodgers and Los Angeles Dodgers from baseball, Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder from basketball, and Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes from hockey. There is precedent for there being two different history pages for relocated North American sports franchises. There's no reason to delete an article which currently exists when simply improving upon it from its current state would be far more preferable. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose until it's official The NFL web site is still calling them the St. Louis Rams. There is no reason not to wait. JOJ ^Hutton 19:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The vote is done. They are officially moved to LA. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The move is official, as official can be. The NFL officially announced the Rams franchise is moving back to Los Angeles in a joint press conference with Stan Kroenke and several other NFL owners. Multiple reliable sources have reported the same. There have also been reports that Rams personnel are already in the process of moving to LA. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Is moving and has moved are very different. Wait until they actually move. All the owners did was vote to allow them to move. They are still in St. Louis until they actually make the move official. Why the need to do this so quickly?JOJ ^Hutton 19:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Rams-to-Return-to-Los-Angeles/802b4e16-671e-4864-97b6-943115cdc4cf The Rams have already confirmed the move on their website. It's official. JCW555 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • The fact that the website you posted start with "St. Louis Rams" pretty much says it all. Wait until it's official. JOJ ^Hutton 20:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support We did this for all of the other teams that did this, no reason to change now. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Elisfkc (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support And what if we merge the articles History of the Los Angeles Rams with the current article History of the St. Louis Rams and create an new article about the History of the St. Louis Rams with that specific information. And I have to say it was me who copied within articles to paste Los Angeles Rams topics in the St. Louis Rams main page. It hasn't been edited so I think it's alright. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would be fine with that, as long as the end result is two separate history pages, one for the St. Louis Rams and one for the LA Rams. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support As long as there's some way to differentiate between the Los Angeles Rams and the St. Louis Rams, I'm all for it. I echo ParkH.Davis (talk)'s sentiments. The move is official; they are now the Los Angeles Rams. I believe it's time to reflect that fact, and to create separate articles differentiating between the team's history in St. Louis and Los Angeles. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Maybe create a history page for the St. Louis Rams, as there is for the Los Angeles Rams. The main page should be moved to Los Angeles Rams though.--SportsMaster (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There already is a page for History of the St. Louis Rams page. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The Rams aren't officially the St. Louis Rams yet. St. Louis and LA should have two history pages, but I think the articles should eventually be merged once the naming and stadium become official. Padsquad2010 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. As above, for now. Until the official website said "Los Angeles Rams," which it will in time, ours should remain unchanged. Just the two cents of a grizzled, mostly-retired Wiki-man. ;) -- E. Brown

References

Team History in sidebar

The team history entry in the sidebar is currently in error. It shows the St. Louis era as the "Los Angeles Rams (1995-present)". This should probably be fixed when it is updated to show the pending move back to LA.

Tanjental (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. It is also not designed to accept "TBD" in certain fields, and should instead be left blank. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

Please change the title to Los Angeles Rams, since the franchise has been relocated. Rjbc (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Not touching that with a 10 foot pole. You are correct, but there is an ongoing discussion about the potential move above. Wait until consensus it gathered --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Team color template

The Rams still have their 2000-present color scheme. Until we hear otherwise, we need to revert to that scheme and their current logo, minus any St. Louis-related script. Jgera5 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Undo Page move?

Somebody just made an unauthorized and unnecessary page move to St. Louis Rams (2016-). Anyone know how to undo this? Richiekim (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Happened again. Elisfkc (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Elisfkc (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone moved the pages, I just copied and pasted back, but someone with Admin right may want to roll it back. @Damon Richmond:, please read above. Elisfkc (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I messed it up. Didn't realize I should have just hit revert. Elisfkc (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11:, do you mind undoing my mistake? Elisfkc (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the move to Los Angeles official? How come it can't be moved? Damon Richmond (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Damon Richmond: because there is a discussion on how to move it, if it should be moved (or if a new page should be started), etc. Elisfkc (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum

Has it been officially announced that they are playing at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, or is it all still just reports? Elisfkc (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is speculation. The team has at least five options and will likely make them compete against each other, even if the Coliseum is the preferred venue. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-la-temporary-stadium-20160113-story.html RickTheHamster (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So, should the Coliseum be replaced with TBD until it is known? Elisfkc (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to just Los Angeles until it is announced. It probably won't take long. RickTheHamster (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

People: the other options are if the Chargers have relocation approved because USC had an agreement with the Goverment of Los Angeles County to now allow two teams play in the Colliseum, and UCLA and Los Angeles Dodgers had said no to NFL use of the Rose Bowl and the Dodgers Stadium respectively.

http://deadspin.com/reports-chargers-and-rams-will-relocate-to-la-share-s-1752593831

Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is Official.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla:, until it's official, it shouldn't be here. @Ravens326: can you provide a source that confirms it officially? Otherwise, it shouldn't be there. Elisfkc (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)