Talk:Los Angeles Rams

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)

I'm not sure the change has offically occured yet (and may just have been announced) for instance the players selected to play in the Pro Bowl are still listed as members of the St. Louis Rams and not the Los Angeles Rams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00C:6A1A:0:69:46B5:AE01 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The NFL has also confirmed the name change: http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/25994/move-still-to-come-but-team-is-officially-the-los-angeles-rams . Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:29, 15 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)
• List of St. Louis Rams seasons → List of Los Angeles Rams seasons

– 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)

Our personal opinions on when they really become the LA Rams doesn't matter; reliable sources are already calling them the LA Rams, as is the NFL and the team itself. Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:49, 15 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)

True - but my point is that before st louis moved the main history page (currently titled st louis) had all the history - including time in Cleveland and LA. Why should this change just because they've moved again? There's no logic to that. In 20 years time [when this relocation is as far away from now as 2015 was from the move from LA] would you still say that the main history article shouldn't move? The main History article should now be titled 'LA rams' - it should take over from the current one - and it should have all the history (including clveland and st louis) - then other pages can delve into more detail about sub parts of that history. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 13:19, 14 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)
  • Kroenke refers to the team as "the Los Angeles Rams" in his latest interview with the Los Angeles Times. His top exec, Kevin Demoff, also talks about restoring the LA Rams look with some updating. Exclusive Q&A: Stan Kroenke discusses his picture-perfect vision for the L.A. Rams Playhouse76 (talk) 00:38, 15 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 St. Louis Rams article should eventually be moved once the naming and stadium, etc. 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

• Support-Support-Oppose. Yes, the main page should be moved - though perhaps waiting till at least after the 2015 season is over would make sense - and yes, there should be a History of the St. Louis Rams page. There is, IMO, no reason for two LA Rams history pages; have a single page for History of the Los Angeles Rams, and link to the STL Rams history page (with a brief overview of the move etc) for the period 1995-2015. This would create separation whilst retaining the symbiotic link between the two "teams" of the franchise. Krytenia (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

References

• Support Does this count?

http://www.lamayor.org/larams

https://twitter.com/LAMayorsOffice/status/687093684664307712/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Leo Bonilla (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support-Support-Merge/Split history The team is the Los Angeles Rams, the history of the franchise should be moved to the LA Rams. The History of the Los Angeles Rams page should be the comprehensive page. The history of the St. Louis Rams should no longer cover the entire history of the franchise, instead it should cover the years of 1995-2015. A precedent for this would be the History of the Brooklyn Dodgers as compared to History of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and History of the St. Louis Browns, as compared to History of the Baltimore Orioles.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment A decision should be made within the next day or so as another team is expected to Join them. My personal belief is the same as Canuckian89 in that the pages should be different, but that a separate page should be made titled "History of the Los Angeles Rams (1946-1994" or "Los Angeles Rams (1946-1994)" should be made at some point.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There's no reason for there to be two history pages for the LA Rams. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support move of the main page to Los Angeles Rams, but keep the different cities' histories separate, as is done with other NFL team articles (i.e. History of the Houston Oilers, etc.). There should be three separate history pages here, History of the Cleveland Rams, History of the Los Angeles Rams, and History of the St. Louis Rams. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support with either one history page for all the teams, or three history pages, as suggested by Ejgreen77. "There should be three separate history pages here, History of the Cleveland Rams, History of the Los Angeles Rams, and History of the St. Louis Rams." Tcpekin 19:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There is the possibility for all three pages to be merged into a page entitled History of the NFL Rams franchise, which covers all of the incarnations of the Rams franchise. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support three different team histories. Wait for start of new league year for move of this page to Los Angeles Rams? Though that isn't until March. If they finalize a stadium, that would also be a good time. Patken4 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The History of the St. Louis Rams page is being built, and is expected to be given an overhaul by myself and other editors. It is recommended that this page be moved if that is the case. But it should remain untouched until after Super Bowl 50--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support move to Los Angeles Rams with one history page in the format proposed by User:UCO2009bluejay. As reported by ESPN within the last hour [1], the team name is now officially the Los Angeles Rams, which ought to lay this discussion to rest. The precedent set by teams like the Chicago/StL/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals to have a comprehensive consolidated history page at the current team name and to have the same main article for the current team as for the Chicago Cardinals is the only choice that makes sense IMO, considering that it is still the same team and officially has the same history (I have no strong opinion on what we should do/have done with the Browns' history, but that case is not directly comparable to this one unless something dramatic changes in St Louis in the years to come).  — TORTOISEWRATH 00:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Note WP:SPLIT. We should endeavor to make Wikipedia's articles as comprehensive as possible (yet not too large). By having separate pages for their times in St. Louis and Los Angeles, it will help alleviate size concerns. Also, IMO, it's confusing for a reader looking for info on the St. Louis Rams to end up at a page detailing the history of the Los Angeles Rams. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 00:50, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Support WP:SPLIT - This is exactly why in the Ice Hockey wikiproject we create new page for each new relocation and keep the old for historical reference. It prevent edits warring and make more concise specific articles with the proper name of what is being searched for (see that Minnesota North Stars is an entirely separate article from Dallas Stars despite it being the same franchise. Yosemiter (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - According to an official NFL spokesman, the team's name is now the "Los Angeles Rams." Source. I was opposed until official confirmation. This sounds pretty official to me. The name change on the official websites and social media may not happen until the unveiling of new logos etc. But these changes are reportedly imminent. -- E. Brown, 04:23 15 January 2016 UTC

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

Can I change St. Louis (for the title and infobox and first paragraph) to Los Angeles? Some mad Rams fan changed it to St. Louis. Linuxrocks3234 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody change the title from St. Louis Rams to Los Angeles Rams? Linuxrocks3234 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make the same request repeatedly in rapid succession. One request will suffice. Wikipedia will be just fine until there is consensus (see above) on this change. If edit warring continues on this page, it may be full-protected. SQL^{Query me!} 02:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done since the team announced they are officially moving. Elisfkc (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• First, the team must have an official presentation in Los Angels before any information source move on from calling the team St. Louis Rams and let's consider that even the 2015 NFL season is still in progress. Second, see above the discussion page because we're still having a brainstorm about what to do and how to edit the different pages related to the Rams.

Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no emergency right now that requires an immediate change. Let's let the community decide how they would like to handle this transition, and once there is consensus it should be acted on. Continuing to edit war is not going to be productive. SQL^{Query me!} 02:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They haven't moved yet!!!!

I'm extremely frustrated by what I perceive to be a lack of understanding of how the process works. The league voted 30-2 to ALLOW the Rams to move. They don't HAVE to move. Until they move, I believe they should still be referred to as in St. Louis, while still acknowledging that they are 99% certain to be going to LA. Lawsuits could still come. There's an unlikely scenario that they reach an agreement with St. Louis. Maybe they can't move in in time. A slew of things could stop the move from occurring, although they will likely not be an issue. Can someone please explain to me how a team that is headquartered in St. Louis, operating out of St. Louis, that only has a stadium agreement in St. Louis, can be considered an LA team already? I'm trying not to get into an edit war here, but this is simply wrong to me, and I don't see any logical explanation other than everyone else is wrong. We're reading the same sources and drawing vastly different conclusions. Padsquad2010 (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree but unfortunately there are some people who want to do this before its official.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically speaking, they don't have a stadium agreement in St. Louis. They'd be on a year to year lease now. But that's besides the point. Elisfkc (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to confirm what you just said without sounding redundant. I don't know how. 98.166.144.129 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That was me above Padsquad2010 (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They Moved, Stan Kroenke spoke, its over, Its Not Your Fault.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Its Not Your Fault.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's it, work your way through the stages of grief. Up next: anger. Knut~enwiki (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mmmmmm????

https://twitter.com/LAMayorsOffice/status/687093684664307712/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Leo Bonilla (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah and there's this http://www.stlouisrams.com/s/30854/409?itemUri=330538947/215510144101182111811114381215 MarcusPearl95 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Rams-to-Return-to-Los-Angeles/802b4e16-671e-4864-97b6-943115cdc4cf Here's a better link.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a Rams fan, but the team has only announced that they will move. Not that they have. Everyone is misunderstanding how the system works. The Rams still refer to themselves as St. Louis, they just won't be for long. Los Angeles, in my mind, should be regarded in the future tense. When the Expos announced they would move to DC in September '04, it wasn't until December or so that they actually moved. We don't even know if they will be called the LA Rams. Padsquad2010 (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They'll be called the LA Rams, Theres no doubt about that.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be called the LA Rams? ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If the ownership decided to be idiots to their LA fanbase. Padsquad2010 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the move has officially kicked in yet, as I mentioned in a section above, for example the players that were selected to play in the Pro Bowl are still listed as members of the St. Louis Rams and not the Los Angeles Rams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:10BA:85A0:7B7F:B955 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

Change the main title from St.Louis Rams to Los Angeles Rams RubinWiki (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please scroll up. There is ongoing discussion. A move like that would also require consensus --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 08:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

New domain name?

What is their new domain name now that they are the Los Angeles Rams again? The current one doesn't work.2605:E000:AA14:FA00:5895:8A9C:9F0C:1A5E (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, they aren't technicaly the "Los Angeles" Rams, but they will be playing in LA. I think it should wait until they officially unveil the LA Rams identity.Padsquad2010 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They are the Los Angeles Rams. They are the same Los Angeles Rams that existed for almost 50 years during the last century. The LA Rams changing their name is extremely unlikely. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Currently, the domain name is still stlouisrams.com . Elisfkc (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

So is there a possibilty that they will still be called "St. Louis Rams" even after they are moved to Los Angeles? 71.218.150.215 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically they could, but not realistically. They are delaying the name change until the postseason finishes is my guess. Padsquad2010 (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

They are officially the Los Angeles Rams

The name change is official, its stupid to keep the name as the St. Louis Rams

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said Thursday the team officially became the Los Angeles Rams on Tuesday evening in Houston, when league owners approved the relocation to Southern California. Although the team hasn't altered its name on social media or its website, that will be coming soon. The same is true here on ESPN.com, where the Rams will henceforth be referred to as the Los Angeles Rams.[2]