Talk:Athletics (baseball)

Untitled

Don't want to post a link without asking first. But here's an Oakland A's Forum.

There are 23 total threads on that board and not many more posts. I don't think that's quite enough for a link in the article that isn't already covered by older, more noteworthy webistes.

Jay Marshall

Unless I'm mistaken, the pitcher Jay Marshall isn't a ventriloquist magician who died in 2005. The link is wrong.

Uniform

The "A" on the uniforms is not Old English.--Hazillow 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This Image:OldEnglish.png is Engraver's Old English. There are a number of differences between this A and the Athletics' A, but I would like to see a source for this. For the moment I believe blackletter is as precise as we can get. ~ trialsanderrors 08:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The A's have a new alternate uniform for this season (It's black, not green). Could someone who knows how to do that kind of thing get on it? Burntorange72 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded 69.107.7.131 (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually they have two alternates this season. They still have the green like they've had since 1994. The black is the new Alternate 1 or Second Alternate jersey. Though as I posted below it hasn't been used all that much, not unlike the black uni they had during the 2000 season. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New Stadium

Anyone else see that Lewis Wolff is holding a press conference about the team's future on Friday. The new stadium will be a big part of this (and possibly if the team will even be the "Oakland" Athletics for much longer :( Gateman1997 02:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

New infobox

I decided it might be time to bring MLB in line with the other sports and have an infobox in addition to the franchise box. Figured I'd experiment on the A's. Let me know what you think, you can see it here New Infobox for A's.Gateman1997 18:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but we already have a few info boxes going on STL, FLA, NYM and PHI. They are not the best, but that is what we have going. I was probably going to have the NL finished this weekend. If you would like to improve what we have or change it, I would suggest bringing it up on the WikiProject:Baseball before you implement anything new. You can access the Project via the template at the top of this page. While you are there, you might as well join the project - it looks like you would be a great addition. See you on the project!--CrazyTalk 22:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Tell me what you think? Don't get me wrong those other info boxes are nice, but I think this looks much better. Much more standardized with other sports too.Gateman1997 01:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

A problem with the current info box is that it had no room for minor league affiliates -- who get then put into a separate info box for which the level of the affiliate is in black and therefore invisible. --Nlu 01:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean? There is a new "franchise" info box down bottom with the MLB Infobox and it has all the minor league teams. We could add them to the main infobox, but IMO they wouldn't be appropriate there since they're just affiliates, and not part of the team proper.Gateman1997 01:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the problem is that the minor league teams' level (AAA/AA/A) are in black and therefore unreadable unless you highlight them. --Nlu 04:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, oddly enough, that appears to only happen with my work computer (my home computer shows the background in white, and there's no problem there). --Nlu 04:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's supposed to be purple.Gateman1997 05:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

There may lie the problem; it will be too dark on many browser setups for the text to be seen. Change it to a lighter color. --Nlu 06:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If light purple is hard to see anyone who is having trouble may want to adjust their monitor. I've looked at it on both a PC and a Mac using CRT and LCD screens and it is as clear as day.Gateman1997 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

But why bother using purple? White's perfectly fine, and in Wikipedia in general, there has never been a general tendency to use a multitude of colors for background. Suggesting people to adjust their monitor is not a reasonable response; the usability of Wikipedia is not supposed to be machine-dependent, much less monitor-dependent. --Nlu 07:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Purple was used for consistency with the MLB template below the Minor League one. And for the record Purple backround is VERY common on Wikipedia.Gateman1997 07:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

GREAT job on updating and upgrading the article!! Uncle Al, 17:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Retired Numbers/Jerseys

I believe that the Athletics have retired a jersey in honor of Walter Haas. Can anyone verify this? Is it appropriate for the Retired Numbers section?

The A's did "retire" a jersey in honor of Haas. It's a jersey from the Finley era---which suggests to me that no one spent much thought on the process---with Haas' name but no number. (The Los Angeles Angels many years ago retired jersey number 26 in honor of their original owner, Gene Autry, as the "26th man" on the 25-man roster.) Uncle Al, 17:33 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a memorial, not a retired number. They did the same for Fosse. Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The A's do have it listed on their official list of retired numbers, but instead of a number it's a blank jersey -- it says A's under his name, instead of a number. Also appeared this way on the outfield fence at the Oakland Coliseum. Benjamintchip (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Rivals

Hello,
The rivals (See also: Bay Bridge Series (Athletics-Giants), City Series (Athletics-Phillies)) are listed on this page twice, once under the Rivals section and once under Quick facts. Do we need it in both places, or can it be stuck under the See also section? What say anyone?--CrazyTalk 18:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have to say it's technically known as "sloppy editing". Feel free to fix it. d:) Wahkeenah 20:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Consider it done!! Uncle Al, 20:00, 09 November 2005 (UTC

Someone put that the A's and Giants have met 3 times in the World Series since their respective moves west, and that they have won two and one of those meetings, respectively. That's just not true. They've only met once since either team moved west, and the Giants have not won a single World Series, let alone one against the A's, since their move to San Francisco.

Angels aren't listed?

Most fellow A's fans consider the Angles to be the A's main rival. A's fans/players dislike the Angels even when they're bad, though it's not as intense as Raiders vs Broncos, Yankees vs Red Sox, etc. For example, many A's fans who normally dislike the Giants for being "the wine and cheese team" wanted them to win the 2002 World Series just because they were playing the Angels. But we could have cared less who won if the Mariners were playing.

Articles about the A's-Angels rivalry from 2014: http://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/la-sp-angels-athletics-baxter-20140829-story.html http://www.athleticsnation.com/2014/6/3/5774256/oh-how-i-love-beating-the-angels

From 2005: http://www.sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=2172668

Any objections to me adding a section about this sometime soon?

Sas3301 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In the mid 70s, the A's shared the spring training camp with the Angels in Palm Springs. The A's had temporary camps 1968-79 in the Southwest US: El Centro, CA a few miles from the Mexican border; Las Vegas, NV (they have a current triple-A affiliate) and Tucson, AZ (they had an AAA pacific coast league team there at the time). In 1994, after the Angels' class-A Cal League team departed from Palm Springs, the Modesto A's had 20 home games when they were discussing to decidedly stay in Modesto anyway. 67.49.85.100 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sports Franchising

Would someone who understands the US franchising system care to contribute some words of wisdom to the Sports franchising article. It mentions Oakland Athletics as an example, but does't really say what it means. [Note that the references to "football" in Europe mean Association Football or "soccer" to you.] --A Confused Limey aka Concrete Cowboy 13:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Official Team Name

Some notes on my recent edits. Though Finley began phasing out the name "Athletics" from the day he bought the team, the name continued to appear in team yearbooks until 1970. The name "Oakland Athletics" appears prominently on the cover of the 1969 Yearbook (which featured a picture of Connie Mack). For the record, the team wore "OAKLAND" on home and road jerseys in 1968, then the traditional "A" on home and road jerseys in 1969. In 1970, the "apostrophe-s" was added, and has remained on the team's cap logo ever since.

The 1982 Yearbook---the second full year of Haas' ownership---is titled "1982 Oakland Athletics Yearbook," and the traditional name is featured prominently in the publication. The confusion arose, I think, from the fact that it was not until 1987 that "Athletics" was restored to the team uniform. Uncle Al, 20:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Split off history articles?

According to the WikiProject baseball, it would make sense to just offer an abridged history of the Phila/KC years here and move the extensive (thank you editors) histories to their own entries. Any comments?

Team history (abridged)

Separate link to detailed history (when appropriate)

~ trialsanderrors 16:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it would be inconsistent with every other Major League Baseball team's history. The St. Louis Browns' history is included in the Baltimore Orioles' history, and so forth. The Anaheim Angels diehards finally capitulated, as that now re-directs to Los Angeles Angels. ---Uncle Al 00:40 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Karsay Retires

Steve Karsay has announced his retirement from baseball. 67.188.172.165 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan Meyer goes to wrong stub

Anyone know where to get info to create new stub?

Mule

If memory serves me correctly Charlie-O was originally a gift from Stuart Symington who wanted the Athletics represented by a Democratic mule rather than Republican elephant. When the Athletics left KC there was controversy over whether the mule should go also. I can't find a citatation on it although this was in the KC Star at the time. Americasroof 07:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mount Davis

Will Mount Davis be opened for the playoffs, or will they keep it covered? They're supposedly selling standing room only tickets, they could sell more if the Mount Davis seats were opened up. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cap insignia

I believe the "A's" on the cap has thinner lines and harder angles than the updated "A's" in the main logo. Refer to player photos.

Yes, the cap logo is the same shape as the one in the official logo. The logo shown as the cap logo (the "fat A") is only used on some licensed apparel and does not appear on the uniform at all. 209.129.161.251 21:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the same "A" however. Remember that on the caps it's 3 dimensional which is why it ends up looking skinnier. If you flatten it out it looks like the A we have in the current image. Gateman1997 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same image. The cap insignia looks like this: [1]. They are not the same. You even say that the fat A does not appear on the cap, why not change it to what it actually is? cheesesteaks3 20:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.20.13 (talk)

White cleats

The image of the team's uniforms feature black cleats. Is there any way to change them to the white cleats that the Athletics wear? Would that violate any policy? Kraikk 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fremont A's"

The A's are relocating to Fremont,CA which is inbetween Oakland and San Jose. I think a section about their move should be added since they aren't really the Oakland A's anymore. --East Bay Citizen, --D.M.

The football Giants have been in New Jersey for decades, but they are still the New York Giants. And by the way, weren't the Oakland Oaks actually in Emeryville? Baseball Bugs 02:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no evidence they won't still have Oakland in their name post move. Wolff has only stated that "at Fremont" will be added to the name. Also, they're still in Oakland until 2010 no matter what happens at the very least. Gateman1997 02:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a parallel to "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim", or LAAA for short. I still think the Dodgers, in retaliation, should have then renamed themselves the "Brooklyn Dodgers of Los Angeles". d:) Baseball Bugs 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well distain for it not withstanding, it makes sense to recognize the city you actually play in while keeping the benefits that come with have a big city name like Oakland or San Jose in your name. Plus it's an added incentive for a suburban town like Fremont to cooperate with Wolff in that they'll have great recognition outside the Bay Area. Infact it would benefit Fremont much more so than a town like Anaheim which already has other well known destinations like Disneyland. Shame Santa Clara's not getting the same kind of deal from the 49ers. Gateman1997 02:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all about $$$ one way or another. I just wonder, with all the retractable roofs and such stuff as that in various cities... will the new Fremont ballpark have a retractable upper deck? >:) Baseball Bugs 02:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the designs they have on their website. Gateman1997 03:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they'll just have to bring along the canvases from the Coliseum. Actually, I hope the A's draw better with a better facility. Some of those Coliseum seats are so far away from the action they might be in a different time zone. Baseball Bugs 03:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

They won't need them in the new park. That's why it only holds between 32,000 and 35,000 fans. The Coliseum WITH the tarps holds 34,000 right now. Gateman1997 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm making fun of your team, and you're not biting. Of course, being a Cubs fan, I've got not much to crow about. :) Baseball Bugs 10:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been defending the A's for twenty years against loud mouth Giants fans. I let my team do the talking for me. 4 world championships and more trips to the post season in the time your team and theirs have garnered 0 championships speaks volumes more than I could. ;) Gateman1997 20:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet nobody shows up. Well, that was the case at San Fran for a long time, until they opened a ballpark that was a little warmer than the icebox at Candlestick. Maybe the new park will give the same boost to the A's. I think they got off to a bad start in 1968 when Finley said his goal was "to draw a million fans". Not to win the pennant, or to become part of the community, but to make money off the locals. I remember those great teams of the early 70s, which were broken up due to money and the Yankees, just like Mack's version of the team did in the early 1930s. The A's have always been kind of a shoestring operation. It would be nice to see them get some respect and some more fans than just the die-hards like yourself. d:) Baseball Bugs 22:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fremont will not have a major league ballpark, nor Santa Clara will get a NFL coliseum. The A's and 49'ers ownership are focused in being in direct proximity to their hometowns, while the San Francisco Giants baseball club has exclusive rights in the San Jose area by Fremont and Santa Clara for a future ball park site. The Oakland A's baseball club may be the first Major league baseball team to relocate four times in its history, originally of Philadelphia and Kansas City before they arrived in Oakland 40 years ago. From what I see in the future, the A's may be playing in Sacramento, Portland and even Montreal isn't a far fetched prediction, though the most feasible outcome is the city of Oakland not Fremont is going to house the Athletics if the city ever approves a new baseball park facility. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Santa Clara DOES have a NFL coliseum in 2017, so this post above me is outdated. Oakland will lose the Raiders in 2019 to Las Vegas. The Oakland A's continue to negotiate a new major league-standard baseball stadium in the city. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Retired Numbers (Images)

I've been working on adding image forms of the retired numbers in all the retired number sections, and my latest one (mostly due to an incident on the controversial Reggie Jackson page), had been Oakland. I followed the model of the numbers atop Mount Davis, except for Haas in which I used the jersey on the right field fence as a model. Robinson's 42, however, doesn't seem to appear anywhere. If anyone can find an instance of Robinson's number being displayed at the Coliseum, it would be greatly appreciate it, although if everyone's okay with the current model, that works too. Also, anyone have a year for when Haas was honored? --Silent Wind of Doom 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see it [[2]]. It's on the railing on the second deck, directly above the Chevy ad. You can also sort of see the Haas jersey, which is on the fence to the right of the Chevy ad, behind the player. The "A's" is green with a white outline, and "HAAS" is green with no outline. Senor k (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oakland Athletics Cap (1985 - 1993).png

Image:Oakland Athletics Cap (1985 - 1993).png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

lost uniform

the uniform picture does not include the black alt. uniform of the a's, someone needs to fix this.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How many times have they worn that uni this year? I've only seen it twice on TV. Kinda like the black uniform from 2000 it's kinda faded away already into non-use. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Duchscherer is a big fan of the black alts. If he comes back to the rotation, you should be seeing the black alts more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.102.63 (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Big 3?

I am thinking of editing the Big three section, adding more detail as i think this is an important part of the Oakland Athletics History. How do you guys feel about that? Sidmsuri (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Sid Suri

"Retired number" table

Am I the only one who finds the "retired number" table completely unreadable? The link colors on the green background are practically invisible; I had to highlight the page to read the names. What can we do to fix this? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary style

Per WP:SPLIT: "If a section is split from the original article, a summary section should be left in the original ("main") article. At the top, it should contain a link to the newly created page, easily achieved with {{Main|Newly created page name here}} template." It appears that no summary was left behind when the history section was split from this article. If regular editors would care to write a short summary for the franchise history section, it would be of great help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationality of Players

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball § Nationality of Players

Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Dynasties?

The lede mentions several dynasties. I understand the early Philadelphia dynasty, and the dynasty that won three straight in the early 70's...but two in a row means dynasty? That would mean the Blue Jays of the 90's are a dynasty and I've never seen them mentioned as such. Also, going to the World Series three years in a row and winning once most certainly doesn't constitute a dynasty, otherwise the Braves of the 90's would also be a dynasty. Furthermore, and most importantly, there appear to be no references standing for the assertion that these were actually "dynasties" and thus this would appear to be original research. I'll wait for someone more familiar with the A's history to rewrite this lede before I go ahead and do it myself. Thanks. TempDog123 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You're correct in the OR nature of the dynasty talk. I'll see what I can do...--Chimino (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

20 win streak notable?

I don't follow baseball but the movie Moneyball made the 20 win streak out to be a "huge deal". The wikipedia page barely mentions it or features it prominently. In fact isn't that the most notable fact about Oakland A? (from a general populace POV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meepdeedoo (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd think their world series wins are more notable than a winning streak during the season. It gets the appropriate mention..the 2002 Oakland Athletics season page goes into a bit more detail on it. Spanneraol (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks--Meepdeedoo (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of colour names in team infoboxes

Regarding this edit: I have started a discussion on the talk page for WikiProject Baseball regarding the capitalization. Please provide your feedback in that thread. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Mustache Gang

Looking to create a wikipage for the Oakland A's 1972 team (The Mustache Gang) known for having beards and mustache's. Would appreciate it if anyone could point out any similar types of articles or if anyone knows good sources about the origins of the Mustache Gang. Appreciate any feedback. Thanks BrazilSean (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Misleading and/or erroneous info in Hall of Fame section

The Hall of Fame section is wrong on a couple of points, partly due to some misleading info and partly due to some incorrect info. One problem is that just because somebody played a game for the A's doesn't necessarily mean he should be listed, e.g. Orlando Cepeda, for whom you could count on one hand the number of games he played for the A's. And Ty Cobb??? Yes, he played for the A's in the last two years of his career after he got run out of Detroit., but nobody associates him with the A's. Those two should be removed. (Remember, the vast majority of Wikipedia readers are not experts in the field, and including them in the list gives those readers an erroneous impression.) I'm not sure what the correct threshold is, but one should be determined so that there are no "what's-he-doing-on-there?" situations, which probably would delete several people from this list.

Also, there is a problem with the (1) and (2) footnotes in the table. For some reason they include "player/manager" which doesn't apply to anyone here at all. Of the six, only Lou Boudreau was ever a player/manager and that was only with Cleveland. So that should be completely deleted. (Why is it there in the first place?) Also, the exact nature of the connection of the managers to the team is also unclear. I would suggest the following correction:

Luke Appling and Lou Boudreau should read, "inducted as player; managed Athletics"

Whitey Herzog and Tommy Lasorda should read, "inducted as manager; played for but never managed Athletics"

Tony La Russa and Dick Williams should read, "inducted as manager; played for and managed Athletics" __209.179.55.119 (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Updating the stadium rumors

I don't think the A's Fremont "move" should be more than just a brief note since it did not pan out and was a bit of a longshot. I have since updated the very realistic talks of moving the A's to Howard Point at the Port of Oakland. The San Jose move is interesting because it went all the way to the high court so it's worth noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaB1122334455 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

IPC

Per this RFC, reliable secondary sourcing is needed to establish the significance of entries in "in popular culture" sections. IMDb and wikis are not reliable sources, while TV shows and transcripts are primary sources that cannot establish their own significance. Per WP:BURDEN, please do not restore such material absent appropriate sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oakland Athletics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vGoo85z6 to http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/oakland/oaka_s.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Oakland Athletics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219001008/http://philadelphiaathletics.org/event/20040605walloffameday.htm to http://www.philadelphiaathletics.org/event/20040605walloffameday.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906180700/http://philadelphiaathletics.org/event/walloffameplaques.htm to http://www.philadelphiaathletics.org/event/walloffameplaques.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/oakland/oaka_s.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas

Oakland just filed a lawsuit over the ballpark. MLB just had threatened to relocate the team to Las Vegas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.9.27 (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"Ballpark" (which includes info about the possible relocation) section is longer than the team's actual "History" section

Maybe time to condense this section or split it off? conman33 (. . .talk) 00:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest to moving it to: Oakland Athletics relocation to Las Vegas or Las Vegas MLB stadium? 70.186.231.186 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should promote the Oakland Athletics relocation to Las Vegas redirect to a full-fledged article until the relocation takes effect. Songwaters (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM was surely at play. It seems we can split off information on the stadium. I will try to draft that shortly. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The Vegas ballpark definitely should have it's own article and much of this should go there.... however the section is way too detailed even for that.. a purge is called for. The parts about improvements to the Coliseum should probably go to that page. Spanneraol (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

As of now, the section in question is still enormous. I would cite not only WP:RECENTISM, but also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE. -- HLachman (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Everybody please help out at Draft:New Las Vegas Stadium, where I split off the content from Oakland Athletics#New ballpark in Las Vegas. It's 20kb prose and has 90 unique citations. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • And let's trim this page too. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Change Oakland Athletics to just Athletics

Someone should mention the name change once they move to sacramento in the lede and infobox. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/oakland-athletics-sacramento-rcna146413 2603:8001:B5F0:8370:1DFA:D1BA:EBE8:6872 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the body of the article, but not in the lead until the conclusion of the 2024 season when the team actually moves and the article title itself is changed. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

We should probably talk about this, sooner than later. Athletics is a disambiguation page. Should we move it to Athletics (baseball) when they are in Sacramento? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I think we have time to wait on this.... they may change their mind before the 2025 season gets going... "Athletics" with no pre-amble is kinda idiotic. Let's wait to see what the official rebranding is and what they change their legal name to. Spanneraol (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably correct. I just found out the other day that the Oklahoma City Dodgers are being called the Oklahoma City Baseball Club this year. There was also the Washington Football Team recently. It could be Athletics Baseball Club or some such term that we just don't know yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the legal company name should play a role, since English Wikipedia articles are named based on common usage. (Plus, since the organization is in the same state, and there's no change in ownership structure, it's quite likely the same name will remain.) isaacl (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If the team re-brands as just "A's", then it'll just be a move across the current redirect if there is consensus for that. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The 2025 schedule just released, and the team seems to simply be going by "Athletics", with the abbreviation of "ATH". Common usage may prove otherwise (and IMO, we should wait until at least spring training 2025 before moving the article), but as of now, it seems the new page name could be "Athletics (baseball)" or "Athletics (baseball team)", or it could involve Sacramento with "Athletics (Sacramento)" or "Athletics (Sacramento baseball team)". Just throwing ideas out. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 13:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

A separate Kansas City Athletics article

Please see the WikiProject Baseball talk page for discussion involving the creation of a separate Kansas City Athletics article. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 16:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect location count or verb tense in history section

>>>With four locations, the A's have had the most homes of any MLB team.

The paragraph details the 3 cities they have had. There's no mention of stadiums in that paragraph so the only applicable definition of 'locations' and 'homes' must be cities. Which means 4 is incorrect when you use a past tense speaking about them.

Either add a sentence about upcoming moves (Sacramento then Vegas) or just make it accurate and say 3. 2600:1700:2950:5220:78D0:4385:831A:136C (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

FJF

Keep the page titled "Oakland Athletics" to spite John Fisher. He's took the piss on A's fans and the city of Oakland in so many times of out of spite, I honestly think for the best interest of professional baseball, to not stoop down to his little demands, especially the "Athletics Hall of Fame" including Philadelphia Athletics players, which is obviously another take of piss on A's fans and Oakland. 9mm.trilla (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

We're not here to right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

RM required?

So, after this season, what shall we call'em? West Sacramento Athletics or Las Vegas Athletics. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Neither. They have said that they will be "The Athletics" while they are in Sacramento. A RM won't be needed. We can make the move to the exact title (is "the" a part of it, officially?) once they make the change, likely after the World Series. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The Athletics as a page title. A first on Wikipedia, for a MLB team page. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably without the "the",[3] which would require a disambiguator. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually we may need a discussion, as neither "Athletics (baseball)" nor "Athletics (MLB)" would work as a dab because of OAK and PHI. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Athletics (MLB) would work best. I know the Texas Rangers have (baseball) in their title but specifying that it's an MLB team name for the A's would help. Also, we'll have to add "Not to be confused with 2025 in the sport of athletics" to their 2025 season page once the time comes.

I would vote for Athletics (baseball). However, we should use the About template, not the Distinguish template, when we distinguish it from the sport of athletics in 2025. Songwaters (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The disagreement in this thread suggests a RM (post World Series) is probably necessary. I think Athletics (baseball) with a About template is probably fine though. Would need to distinguish from both the sport and the two previous teams with the name. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

What about "Athletics (of Sacramento)" for clarity? 97.100.64.246 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Time to Drop Oakland from the official article name. (Perhaps A's or Athletics Major League Baseball Club)

Seeing as they have now played their final game in Oakland, and their season is Officially over, it may be time to drop the Oakland Name from the team Page. Perhaps using A's, or Athletics Major League Baseball Club for the title of the article. As they will be known as the A's or Athletics while playing in Sacramento with no city name attached. Subman758 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Not till after the World Series or when the team officially rebrands itself. Spanneraol (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed here. The MLB season is not officially over until the end of the World Series. CNC33 (. . .talk) 01:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Not yet, Subman758, I know you're a Republican voter and we know and are aware you seem to hate the state of California, but easy on the trigger, alright? 9mm.trilla (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator speaking here, 9mm.trilla. Please refrain from personal attacks which are contrary to policy. Comment on the content issue, not on the personal characteristics of another editor. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with anything? Bronxpinstripes (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@9mm.trilla: I'm not sure how your comment was relevant to a potential page move but, in any case, relax. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 20:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my knee-jerk reaction. 9mm.trilla (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, seeing that the World Series is over, should we rename the article, or wait until their (temporary) move is complete and their branding changes? I'm fine with either, but I lean towards the latter. NocoRoads 17:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

What source do we have that says that they have dropped "Oakland"? Their Twitter bio still calls them the "Oakland A's" as of the timestamp on this comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm saying: they haven't rebranded yet. I'm not sure when they will, but all sources I've found still call them the Oakland Athletics. Waiting is probably in order. NocoRoads 17:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Still wondering that as the team list still displays the new name of Athletics and some (but not all) articles relating to current MLB info has the new name, even though it still hasn't "officially" been renamed yet. Soccer Tees (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

While all of the A's socials have not updated to reflect their move from Oakland, over the weekend, MLB's website now only shows "Athletics" instead of "Oakland Athletics", as can be seen here. The A's also updated their MLB page, as "Sutter Health Park" now appears at the top where "Oakland Coliseum" used to be. There's also a discussion to be had (as started in the section below) about splitting off the Oakland history as its own "Oakland Athletics" page, akin to Philadelphia Athletics and Kansas City Athletics, though I assume this may depend on how the A's in Sacramento treat their Oakland history. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 14:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the recent changes to the A's official website are probably enough to go ahead and move the article to Athletics (baseball), which seems to be the name that makes the most sense at this point. I'd hold off on creating a separate Oakland page until there is more history for the new team.. or even after the move to Vegas.. cause we need to decide if the Sacramento years are going to be kept with Oakland or the upcoming Vegas version.. i doubt it should maintain it's own article. Spanneraol (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say to hold off for a little bit on changing the name...WP:NAMECHANGES is based on reliable sources written after the name change. I just did a google search and can't find any news about them just being called "Athletics". Just basing the name change on the MLB website is getting close to original research in my opinion. Once news organizations pick up the name change (ESPN, NBC, etc), then I'd say go ahead with the change. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 16:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Eventual page split regardless of an RM

Given we have separate articles on Philadelphia Athletics and Kansas City Athletics, chronicling the team's previous tenures in Philadelphia and Kansas City, I fully expect this page to eventually split in a similar fashion, regardless of an RM: the Oakland Athletics page will eventually just chronicle the team's tenure in Oakland, and the main team's article's content will be moved/split to the team's new name. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally agree with splitting off Oakland Athletics as its own article, though I think it's a bit tricky at the moment since there really is no "Athletics" (of Sacramento) history right now. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 14:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is pretty clear that the title for the current MLB franchise should be at the current name, which is simply "Athletics". I think most of us without our Wikipedia hats on agree it's pretty stupid, but it is what it is.

"(baseball)" as a disambiguator is currently preferred to "(baseball club)", as it's the format used for the Texas Rangers. Which disambiguator to use may warrant further discussion, but I think it's best done in another RM, so for the avoidance of doubt, this RM should not be seen as a binding decision on that front.

Spinning out the Oakland-specific content to Oakland Athletics (q.v. Philadelphia Athletics and Kansas City Athletics) is a content decision outwith the remit of an RM, and in my opinion, is a good idea. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Oakland Athletics → Athletics (baseball) – Or Athletics (baseball club). The team has left Oakland for good, and MLB.com now lists the team without a city identifier. This is a full RM because of the issues mentioned in the sections above this on the talk page; feel free to also discuss whether the Oakland Athletics page (the current location) should redirect or be split off. O.N.R. ^(talk) 16:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature and unclear with two possible options given. No sources provided that show that the team has yet "left Oakland for good" or when exactly the rebrand will happen. Maybe at the Owner's Meetings, maybe at the Winter Meetings. Official social media accounts still say "Oakland A's". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Actually.... Support Athletics (baseball), today was the right day for this. The rebranding takes effect today. Ping HalfOfAnOrange, Esb5415, Walsh90210. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, I can't find any reliable sources required by WP:NAMECHANGE. Maybe in a week (or hell, even a few hours) there will be some, but right now I just can't find any. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 16:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Support Athletics (baseball). WP:RS are reporting on the name change, and (baseball) is the best disambiguation. CBS Sports, Bleacher Report, Sports Illustrated. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Additional sources: Fox News, The Athletic. Articles just saying Athletics with no location: Sac Town Sports Las Vegas Review Journal. Additionally, I can't find any sources written since the name change that use the phrase "Oakland Athletics". Per WP:NAMECHANGE, we should move the article title. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 14:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  It hasn't even been a week and those sources mostly still mention the former name. Name change isn't supposed to be applied the day after a change has happened. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  None of those sources do. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 02:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

For now just wait until consensus but I do agree that Oakland Athletics should be split considering Oakland Raiders in split from Las Vegas Raiders. Whether the three year Sacramento saga is to be independent of the Las Vegas Athletics page will be decided once the team moves there. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. Happened now. Athletics (baseball) HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

More appropriately Athletics (MLB) VyveGuy1 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Their official address is now their temporary ballpark in Sacramento, per MLB.com. They've dropped their city identifier, as they said they would do (even if it doesn't make much logical sense). It's time. It's official. Valadius (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Baseball, WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force, WikiProject California, WikiProject Philadelphia, WikiProject Nevada, and WikiProject Kansas City have been notified of this discussion. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment maybe slightly premature, but the social media links from Muboshgu appear to have been changed in the past few hours; Reddit says they are doing the re-branding today. I expect it will be more clear in a few days how the team will be referred to going forward, hopefully that will hint at a disambiguation (MLB team would be my first suggestion). It is almost certain that a rename/split of the team's history in Oakland will be necessary. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support; I'm not entirely happy with Athletics (baseball) as it isn't clear that this is a team, or in the United States. But it seems to be the best of several imperfect options for now. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The Athletics released a statement confirming the dropping of the "Oakland" moniker KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk)
• Support... based on the statement put out today and the transitioning of the team social media accounts. I think Athletics (baseball) is still the best choice rather than (baseball club) or (MLB) as it is the simplest. Spanneraol (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per KENGRIFFEY24FAN's reasoning. Also, the A's Twitter and Instagram have been renamed today from "Oakland A's" to "Athletics" (expecting more to change throughout the day). I'm in favor of separating an "Oakland Athletics" page to be dedicated to the history of the A's in Oakland, akin to Philadelphia Athletics and Kansas City Athletics, at some point during the off season. I think we can discuss in 3 or 4 years what to do with the Sacramento-era (if) the A's move to Las Vegas, in 3 or 4 years. Now what to call the renamed page? Could be "Athletics (baseball)", "Athletics ([West] Sacramento baseball team)", or a variation thereof. Consensus seems to be for "Athletics (baseball)" though, from what I've read on this talk page. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 18:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Question Would Wikipedia’s interests better be served if it was further disambiguated to (baseball team) rather than just (baseball)? It’s unusual in American sports for a sports team name to be a mononym. DrewieStewie (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  It would not be in sync with the other MLB team name that requires disambiguation, the Texas Rangers (baseball). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Unlike the As, the Rangers are prefixed by a state, so it’s unlikely to be confused with something else other than a baseball team. However, Athletics is a very generic term without a geographic marker. Therefore, titling it (baseball) instead of (baseball team) could be confusing to someone who isn’t familiar with baseball or the MLB, visiting the article thinking “athletics” is baseball terminology rather than a team name. Hence; why I strongly believe the (baseball team) disambiguation is needed here. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support: But further, should "The" be included in the page title? I know that's not usually the standard for Wikipedia pages, but it may help distinguish it better from other "Athletics" pages. Red0ctober22 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: How should Athletics player infoboxes work? (e.g. for Brent Rooker "Oakland/The Athletics (2023–present)")? or perhaps something else?

Red0ctober22 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I was considering whether The Athletics would work, but the new MLB style guide (as republished by Bleacher Report) advises against it, and Wikipedia avoids unnecessary use of "The" in titles. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: per KENGRIFFEY24FAN's reasoning. 45BearsFan (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support: obviously, cannot be "Oakland Athletics" anymore. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support they just change their name today Ethan Marchand (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Although it was premature, I believe whoever just changed it to "Athletics (Major League Baseball team)" sounded good, I support a change to that.

Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Red0ctober22 That was me. I tried to change it to that because I thought it would make the most sense. sadly, this team is no longer based in Oakland, California. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Athletics (baseball) for the most simple disambiguation (sadly). Nate • (chatter) 20:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @MrSchimpf Support The team is no longer based in Oakland. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Athletics (baseball club) instead. The team is not a baseball, it is a baseball club.-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well we have Texas Rangers (baseball), so it's Athletics (baseball) to be consistent. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Was about to say this, it should be moved to (baseball), or feel free to open the Texas Rangers page for discussion as well. (baseball) is a broad enough subject to refer to here, it doesn't need specifics unless there's multiple Athletics in "baseball" Chewsterchew (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd think we're better off changing both to (MLB Team), as the concepts of 'Athletics' and 'baseball' exists outside of the professional team (ie: the athletic nature of the sport) 76.68.184.102 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  (it also eased confusion with articles about the prior and unrelated Athletics teams... since obviously they're all baseball-adjacent, but only one is a current MLB team) 76.68.184.102 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support since they're officially the Athletics now, it makes sense to do Athletics (baseball) here. Chewsterchew (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we request to close this? And we'll need to split the Oakland Athletics page and make another template for the Oakland Athletics seeing as the colors are still using Raider colors instead of the Athletics colors. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this can likely be closed per WP:SNOW, although I'm not experienced enough to make these moves. A lot of stuff needs to be handled, especially the category. Chewsterchew (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The categories should not be moved. It's common to keep the existing cats and then create new ones for the new team. Spanneraol (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - While sources may cover a potential name change, using "Athletics (baseball)" on Wikipedia still requires a level of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CRYSTALBALL. First, the mere existence of sources or announcements commenting on its name change doesn't mean that the term will become the expected term outside basic contexts. Second, assuming that a new title should be based on these indicators disregards WP:COMMONNAME, which historically remains Oakland Athletics in most reliable sources and among the general public. Stability is preferred over potential or speculative terms, especially when they're not yet widely adopted. Renaming this page to some variation of Athletics would also require some form of parenthetical disambiguation, whereas Wikipedia prefers the use of natural disambiguation if possible. Kind of reminds me of something else... oh well I just can't remember. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The name has officially changed. From now on, they are officially referred to as the Athletics. WP:COMMONNAME is superseded because the team is no longer in Oakland. I don't think anybody will be referring to the team as the Oakland Athletics, as that would be factually incorrect. - RockinJack18 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well when the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders moved the pages had to be renamed. Yes it took a while but that's what happened. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

which historically remains Oakland Athletics in most reliable sources and among the general public...WP:NAMECHANGE specifically refers to reliable sources published after the name change, not historical. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support, it's their official name as of today, and per above. - RockinJack18 21:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support, As much as I personally hate to see it, it has indeed been made official that the A's are no longer referred to as the Oakland Athletics. I only wish that we could make the page "Athletics (MLB)". Maybe that's a topic we can revisit regarding them and the Texas Rangers. But for now, "Athletics (baseball)" is perfectly fine. - Dannyyankee12_{let's talk} 21:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; I'd like to see a better disambiguator of both, but this is just for the main naming issue occurring today. Nate • (chatter) 22:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I am under the strong conviction that (baseball) is too vague of a disambiguation without a geographic qualifier and that it can easily be confused by an unfamiliar audience as baseball terminology rather than a team/club. Therefore, as much as I fucking hate and have protested this move at demonstrations, support move with the (baseball team) disambiguation over just (baseball). DrewieStewie (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support per above, name change is official Maxx1222 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Maxx1222 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support per above. Name change is official and MLB articles always include the then current name. https://x.com/JohnSheaHey/status/1853500649322713554/photo/1 Gateman1997 (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. MLB.com now calls them the Athletics. Songwaters (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose As certain teams in European association football leagues like "Athletic Club" but more known as Athletic (Bilbao), "Inter" or "Internazionale", or just "Inter Milan, a rugby union team in France commonly known as "Pau", the New York Knickerbockers, and other examples out there refer to their 'unofficial names' rather than their preferred one. 9mm.trilla (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Athletics and A's are used as the only names for the team. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Other examples are: Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club, New York Football Giants, Inc., "LA" Galaxy, the Canadian Football League's "Winnipeg Football Club" and "Toronto Argonaut Football Club". 9mm.trilla (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but the Athletics and A's are the full names with only (baseball) to help distinguish it. The title would just be "Athletics (baseball)" or "A's (baseball)". HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

When they move to Vegas, the city identifier will go with it. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: I think Athletics (Major League Baseball) would be a better title, though, but I won't fight if people disagree. MushroomMan674 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally I wish they had done something fun like calling the team the Las Vegas Athletics of West Sacramento. Spanneraol (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: We see individual pages for relocated MLB teams, such as Boston Braves, Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants. Why not just create a new page for the soon-to-be Las Vegas Athletics. Leave the Oakland Athletics page as is for historical purposes. Ralphierce (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that is also what I want to have created. For now, we can just make a new page for the Las Vegas Athletics. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - until the new year, so the infobox doesn't create the mistaken "2024 Athletics season". GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Support: As previously stated, the name change is official. Beikeonbeogeo (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree - The team has officially dropped Oakland from the name. It needs to be changed to reflect that. It is all over the place in the media. VyveGuy1 (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this is a worse title per the WP:CRITERIA and no evidence has been provided of this being a common name. The name has only just changed and likely could change again. Also what yovt said. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Well the name change is official and people still call them the Athletics or A's. This will just be for three seasons then we'll add Las Vegas or Vegas when they arrive. The situation sucks but it's what it is. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Remember the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" name? That was the title of the page until they dropped Anaheim. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So you want to change the name just to change it again later? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

and likely could change again...see WP:NAMECHANGES. Just because a name may change again doesn't mean we can't change the name now.

See my support above for WP:RS using 'Athletics' as the common name. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 13:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the actual guideline you're mentioning it states: 'If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name'.

It is too soon to establish whether this will or will not occur. The title can stay as is for now. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

They are no longer in Oakland, They don't have the title of the "Oakland Athletics," they are just the "Athletics"

If you want proof, look at the MLB Website [4] KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So what? There are teams with names that don't relate to where they play. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Either way they aren't going to be in Oakland, so might as well remove it and add Las Vegas or Vegas when they get there in 2028. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And? They've been in Oakland for the past six decades, that is what most people will recognise compared to just 'Athletics' which is incredibly vague. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Athletics the team name? People will recognize the Athletics as a baseball team. We have the (baseball) part to distinguish from the subject of Athletics. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Will people not recognise Oakland Athletics? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Everyone knows the Oakland Athletics but it's not the name of the team or reflecting the current situation. We could just either make a new Oakland Athletics page or another page for the Athletics franchise and decide if we update that when they move to Vegas or split the Sacramento saga from the Vegas page. The Athletics already have pages for their time in Philadelphia and Kansas City, so we'll just do the same for Oakland. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We use the title United States not United States of America, France not French Republic, and FIFA not Fédération Internationale de Football Association.

The lead can very easily reflect this e.g. Oakland Athletics, officially Athletics or even Athletics, formerly Oakland Athletics.

If you want to create a new page you should start work on a draft but it is almost certainly too soon for a mainspace article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well while it happens to be the official name, Athletics is recognisable enough in the baseball context that it can be standalone until they get to Vegas (and it's also short enough that it's not really a problem like the examples you mentioned). I don't see the issue with just "Athletics (baseball)" as the title for the time being given that it will probably be closed with this decision in a few days. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Less natural and less recognisable is the issue with it, all for a title that most supporters admit will likely change in the future. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to keep the title as Oakland considering the team is no longer based there and all sources are using the new name now. When it changes in the future it can be changed again. Spanneraol (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So what if they aren't in Oakland? There are plenty of teams who have names that don't correspond to their actual location.

And no, not all the sources are using the new name: [5] and there is no way to establish any sort of trend with just 3 days worth of coverage mostly about the name change itself Traumnovelle (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not too soon to determine it. There's nothing in the policy to determine that. I have read the policy, please don't say I haven't.

But you have shown there are some sources that still use the Oakland name, so your opposition is warranted. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 03:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NAMECHANGES states routinely you cannot identify routines without a decent time frame. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The Oakland Athletics page should be archived for historical purposes and a new page created for Athletics (baseball) until their permanent move to Las Vegas. At that point, the new page could be renamed to Las Vegas Athletics. The redirect should be from the Oakland Athletics page to Athletics (baseball). Alielmi1207 (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support although I am skeptical that the Las Vegas Athletics will ever become a reality. I think the best article title is "Athletics (baseball)." For those saying to simply split it and start a brand-new article for the current iteration of the team, that won't really work; a lot of the article consists of stuff that applies to the whole franchise (e.g. franchise records, rivalries) and should remain with the main article, not a history article for the Oakland era. Some text will need to be moved over into a history article, but most of what's currently in the article needs to stay. SS451 (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  There are separate articles for previous iterations of teams that have relocated. The Atlanta Braves have two articles dedicated to their time in Boston and Milwaukee. The Los Angeles Dodgers have an article dedicated to their time in Brooklyn. The San Francisco Giants have an article focusing on their time in New York. The Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers each have separate articles that focus on their time as each iteration of the Washington Senators. Even the Seattle Pilots (now Milwaukee Brewers) have their own article. The St. Louis Browns have an article too. NFL and NHL teams that have relocated also have separate articles (e.g. Houston Oilers, Minnesota North Stars). The Athletics have separate articles focusing on Philadelphia and Kansas City. Many of you want to support renaming the article title, but there has been precedent for relocated teams to have separate articles for each city they called home. Why not just keep the Oakland Athletics article as is and create a new one for the Sacramento/Las Vegas era. Isn't that hard to do? Ralphierce (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well this has all of the team information for the franchise overall. So we could split and create the Oakland article and copy all the Oakland information over there and then have this one be the main one that carries the franchise information over. This isn't like the Arizona Coyotes and the Utah Hockey Club, this is the same franchise, but moving. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  IMO there would need to be a reorganizing of content. Oakland-focused content currently in Oakland Athletics and Oakland-focused content in History of the Oakland Athletics should be merged and be on the Oakland Athletics page. A somewhat-more generalized version of the Oakland section of the history article should remain, with the history article moved to "History of the Athletics" or "...Athletics franchise" or "...Athletics baseball", etc. (the Philadelphia section could use actual content as well). That history page should be called "Oakland Athletics", with a former team infobox (which I may add in the meantime).

  The non-Oakland-focused content in Oakland Athletics (which is honestly the majority of the article, as it's mostly franchise related, e.g. Roster & Uniforms) should be moved to "Athletics (baseball)" or whatever the name will eventually be. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 02:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think there should be a history article for the Oakland era of the franchise, but it should be structured as a history article along the lines of the examples you’ve cited. The structure and a lot of the content of the existing article (which is focused around the team’s current status and things like franchise records) does not fit a history article. SS451 (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

References

• Weak Oppose for now as too soon, per WP:NAMECHANGES where " If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day" -- there are multiple published sources "today" still using the Oakland prefix. [6] [7] [8], as well as the Althetics online community still using the Oakland prefix [9] and ESPN. While the change is official, there is still a lot of very recent (last 24 hours) coverage including the location of Oakland in coverage. TiggerJay (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

When the Washington Redskins changed to the Washington Football Team, the page was changed to "Washington Football Team", even though it was known that was a temporary name, and many people at the time still referred to them as the Redskins, despite that being factually incorrect. In my opinion, calling them the Oakland Athletics is as factually incorrect as calling the Los Angeles Rams the St. Louis Rams. I understand the idea that teams don't play in the city they call themselves from (e.g. NY Giants & Jets), but the Athletics franchise is publicly disassociating themselves with the city of Oakland by dropping the name, and clearly stating that they are no longer based on Oakland. While I agree with taking some time to figure this out, I certainly would not agree if it's 2026 or so and this page is still called "Oakland Athletics", two years after leaving Oakland. Red0ctober22 (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, hence the specificity of "for now" -- it is very possible that in a week, month or year it will have been broadly changed, and possibly even over to the more permanent name. And yes there is a difference between name changes like this (dropping a city name) versus a complete name change (Redskin to Football Team) as well. There is no rush to make this change. TiggerJay (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well.. it absolutely needs to be changed before the new season gets going. I really don't get the objection to making this change. Should we go back to calling them the Philadelphia A's even though they haven't been there for half a century? Spanneraol (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you're right Spanneraol, because reliable sources written after the name change are still calling them the Philly A's. Oh wait, nobody is doing that... Well, then clearly you're not reading my actual "weak oppose for now" rationale, and just responding to a specific reply you wanted to argue. Among other reasons for a rational delay, is that there are other options available as well -- for example when the Oakland Raiders, left there was a brand new Las Vegas Raiders article created. Other options (because we've seen it before) is that within a short period of time a different situation might change -- it's interesting that you were a proponent of waiting over the last few months seemingly for similar reasons, why the rush? Furthermore in your own reply to Traumnovelle, you said "all sources are using the new name now" but if you read my article, I provided no less than 5 examples showing otherwise, so hardly "all sources" is accurate. But again I guess thinkgs like WP:NAMECHANGES doesn't apply here, right? Again I'm not against the name change at some point, just like you were not, I'm simply saying not today... maybe next week (again, that is FAR different that your laughable proposal of Philly As). TiggerJay (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What I said in my earlier posts was about waiting until "the team officially rebranded".. which they have done. And your sources were from obscure websites, not mainstream publications that all mentioned the name change. They arent gonna change their minds on the name change before the season starts. Spanneraol (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

No surprise a Dodgers fan is really adamant about the name change. 9mm.trilla (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

No need to be personal. Stick to the subject. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think similar to what you mentioned about the Oakland Raiders page, *eventually* the Oakland Athletics page can be preserved as a piece of the team's history, (similar to how the Philadelphia Athletics page exists), and create a new page called "Athletics (baseball)" or whatever it will be called, and that new page will eventually be turned into "Las Vegas Athletics" whenever they start playing there (2028 I think). This reflects the whole plan of the franchise itself, that the only reason they are changing their name now is with the long-term plan of adding that "Las Vegas" to the name in 2028 or whatever. But I completely understand what TiggerJay is saying about the sources, I just didn't understand the people saying "not all teams use the name of the actual city they play in". It's been made very clear by Athletics ownership that they are disassociating themselves from Oakland and want nothing to do with the city anymore, so it will eventually be simply an incorrect statement to call them "Oakland", whether that is the most "recognizable" or not. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The guinea pig isn't a pig nor is the Balinese cat related to Bali in anyway. It doesn't matter what the brand chooses to do with itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

But there is no "association" or "organization" of guinea pigs or balinese cats informing us of the correct name, whereas we have evidence of the Athletics organization officially informing the public of the new correct name for the franchise. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Twitter your fancy then? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I know there was a whole discussion, but I disagree with the Twitter page not being called X, especially because now it is almost always referred to as either "X" or "X (formerly known as Twitter)" by news sites. Red0ctober22 (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Your AP source and KSTP source don't use "Oakland" in the present day. Both refer to the team as just "Athletics". The Oakland part is referring to the picture of McFarland playing in 2024 for the Oakland Athletics. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 01:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, the KSTP source is just the AP article anyway. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 01:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Well it's best we change before the 2025 season starts. Sure it may be weird without a name but it will make more sense considering the 2025 page already doesn't have Oakland in it either. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

A suggestion: given that all MLB teams which have moved cities have an article dedicated to them and the A's leaving a long history behind in Oakland, we create a new article dedicated to the "Athletics (baseball)." This article can stand as the chronicle for A's tenure in Oakland. There will be plenty of info to fill in a new article and it will also prevent this article from becoming too big. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree there should be an article for "Athletics (baseball)" but I'd prefer a new one to renaming this one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support and a suggestion: I believe this is the time to rename this article to Athletics (baseball), because they dropped the city's name Oakland from the franchise team after the 2024 postseason ended, per some reliable sources above. Another renaming suggestion to this would be Athletics (baseball team). Another suggestion rather than renaming the Oakland Athletics article for historical purposes is to create an article as either the Athletics (baseball) or Athletics (baseball team), because this franchise was known as the Philadelphia Athletics for their time in Philadelphia from 1901 to 1954 and Kansas City Athletics for their time in Kansas City from 1955 to 1967 before their move to Oakland in 1968. --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 14:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Because the move next season to Sacramento is only temporary until the new Las Vegas stadium is completed, the transitional name under discussion should be the name of this article until the team actually play their home games in Las Vegas. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. They are not in Oakland anymore. Theparties (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support despite the questionable morality of such a move, this is their new name now since they're no longer in Oakland and theres no COMMONNAME justification around to back the idea of keeping them at Oakland Athletics. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and split. Some commenters above mentioned that Philadelphia Athletics and Kansas City Athletics are already standalone articles. Oakland Athletics should be one too. A new article named Athletics (baseball) should be started for the team's history from November 2024 onward; this new article will in all likelihood be renamed Las Vegas Athletics when the move happens. 162 etc. (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose and split: I concur with the above statement. swinquest (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose and split: It's time to move the page. Wamalotpark (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this current article should remain as is and a new article created.. as this article is the main franchise overview that covers the whole history of the franchise.. which is what the Athletics article should be... a new article, focused just on the teams time in Oakland should be created for the Oakland Athletics period. Spanneraol (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Support: That makes sense to me. I think there is consensus for moving the article. I don't think the one "oppose and split" and its supporter would object to a move, as long as a separate article for the team's tenure in Oakland is created. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  > "as long as a separate article for the team's tenure in Oakland is created"

  That's exactly what "split" means... 162 etc. (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  You suggested that a new article should be started for the team's history from November 2024 onward. After Spanneraol's message, I still agree it's best that a new article should be started, but for the team's history while in Oakland, and this one should be moved to Athletics (baseball). Wamalotpark (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see. No objection to having the article's history carrying over to Athletics (baseball), with a new article (Oakland Athletics) being split off. 162 etc. (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I support that too. So long as there is a page for the Oakland A's. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Question This RM has been open for over two weeks. When will it be closed or relisted? Esb5415 (talk) (C) 14:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm guessing it is slow because a substantial portion of both the Support and Oppose votes want the article to be split. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-move comment

Note that Category:Oakland Athletics and related subcategories should be moved to match. 162 etc. (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Team name

Official today November 4th the team dropped the name Oakland. Can we change it ? https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5898373/2024/11/04/athletics-oakland-name-change/ Ethan Marchand (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Info boxes

To note, best not to change the team played for in the Infobox to "Athletics" until after the player has appeared in a game for them under that name. People could get traded/cut etc before the season starts so keeping them as Oakland Athletics rather than the Oakland Athletics / Athletics designation would be preferred. Spanneraol (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The exception will be current minor league affiliations if that is ok. I think that affiliations are a little different than being on a team. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well they haven't played in the majors yet so they wouldn't have that line in the info box anyway. Spanneraol (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean team affiliations like the Las Vegas Aviators HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean.. the minor league teams arent listed in the infoboxes.Spanneraol (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No I meant on their individual team pages, it would be split. So on the pages of the Las Vegas Aviators, Lansing Lugnuts, etc. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok.. I was talking about the player pages.. the teams are a different thing. Spanneraol (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox 'current season'

Anybody know how to fix the "current season", at the top of the infobox? They were the "Oakland Athletics" during the 2024 season. It's tied up with the infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it changes automatically based on the date... so it wont switch over till January 1st. Spanneraol (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, it's incorrect. It should read "2024 Oakland Athletics season", as that is what they were called during that season. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's automatic based on the team name. Now that they're simply called the Athletics, the season link will read as such. As long as the actual 2024 Oakland Athletics season page still has "Oakland" in the team name, it should be fine. Dannyyankee12_{let's talk} 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yea, it's automatic based on the team name in the infobox and the actual date.. it cant really be changed.. but the 2024 Athletics season redirects to 2024 Oakland Athletics season so it goes to the right place... We'll just have to deal with it bein technically incorrect through the rest of 2024. Spanneraol (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be best if held off until the new year, editing "Oakland" out of the page's intro & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft creation

I have created a draft for the Las Vegas team at Draft:Athletics (baseball) in Las Vegas. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Las Vegas team be referred to as the Las Vegas Athletics by the time they finish the move? SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 05:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I have kept this in mind, which is why Draft:Las Vegas Athletics is a redirect to the main draft. Trying to predict whether or not the team will be referred to as the LVA's in the future may be WP:CRYSTALBALL, which is why the draft is titled Athletics (baseball) in Las Vegas, similar to why Draft:Rio 3 redirects to Draft:Untitled Third Rio Film. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 05:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a weird name to use.. and they wont be in Vegas for three years so isn't it really premature to make that draft? Spanneraol (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty clear they won't be using the Las Vegas name while in Sacramento (or West Sacramento to be specific). And at the rate it's looking, the stadium won't even be ready in three years. Red0ctober22 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Relating to above requested move

Regarding the above requested remove, if the move as stated above occurs (where the active franchise page is Athletics (baseball), the following should occur at the same time, consistent with other active-franchise-of-previous-location pages (such as Brooklyn Dodgers, Philadelphia Athletics, and Kansas City Athletics, where there is no "History of" pages):

• History of the Oakland Athletics → History of the Athletics (baseball) (or something similar)
• Oakland Athletics → Athletics (baseball)
• Oakland specific content from what would now be Athletics (baseball) (such as Ballpark history and future, which has zero content related to Philadelphia or Kansas City) should be merged with the entire Oakland section of what would now be the History of the Athletics (baseball) page, into a new Oakland Athletics article.
• Following the creation of a new Oakland Athletics article, the Oakland section that is currently on History of the Oakland Athletics should be trimmed down into eras and more generalized. Keep the individual year sections on the new Oakland Athletics article.

Due to page history, it might be better to move content differently, but I imagine this is the best course of action. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 01:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok.. got it.. This seems like the best course of action.. move the pages and then create a new Oakland page by splitting out info not needed at the main page. Can we go ahead and close this RM already so we can start working on that. Spanneraol (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I still believe (baseball team) is preferred over (baseball), as I have stated above several times in the move discussion. It's more concise. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I personally lean more towards "baseball team" as well. There should be a dedicated section related to an "Athletics (baseball team)" vs. "Athletics (baseball club)" vs. "Athletics (baseball)" discussion IMO, at least now that consensus above almost clearly states that the move (or split) to "Athletics (something)" is the preferred option. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 06:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not "more concise" as it is more words... also (baseball) is consistent with other teams.. and no one really calls them clubs. Spanneraol (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I started with moving stuff to the new Oakland page.. really need someone to spend some time on it cause I don't have the time to really do it properly right now. Spanneraol (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2024

Athletics (baseball) → Athletics (baseball team) – Going from a suggestion by @Spesh531:; I’m finally making this a dedicated move request (not section, as the page was moved while I was typing this originally) so that it’s specifically addressed by the community and there’s a clear consensus for or against this proposal. Now, I understand that other teams like the Texas Rangers (baseball) only have it as (baseball). However, this case is different. In that case, a clear disambiguation is needed, but once it’s established that they’re talking about baseball, it’s understood that they’re talking about team rather than some other terminology. I don’t believe that to be the case here when disambiguating Athletics into (baseball) without any sort of geographic influence in the title. It’s not like, say, the Yankees, removed New York from the title and the article gets called Yankees (baseball). Athletics is a much more general “sports” kind of team title, and therefore, an unfamiliar reader may see the “Athletics (baseball)” title and think the article covers baseball terminology rather than a team; so, with such a general team name, without it being (baseball team), it could be misleading. On that basis, I strongly support (baseball team) over simply (baseball), as it appears to be the strongest, clearest, easiest to understand disambiguation possible. I’m simply seeking a consensus that clearly addresses this; if most are overwhelmingly opposed to (baseball team), I’ll begrudgingly let it stand and withdraw this as SNOW. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The standard disambiguation tag is (baseball). Unless the current title is demonstrably ambiguous (and I don't think it is), then (baseball team) is unnecessary disambiguation. 162 etc. (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The standard has been to use just (baseball) as a descriptor.. see for example Texas Rangers (baseball).. there really isn't any other baseball thing called the Athletics so I think this should be fine. Spanneraol (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Athletics (baseball) is sufficient.

  Assadzadeh (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose per above. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support. While I do think "Athletics" as a term is ambiguous enough where "Athletics (baseball team)" is warranted (while keeping Texas Rangers (baseball) as is, I don't have too strong of an opinion either way. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 01:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: as the closer of the above RM, I was trying to hint that an RM on the disambiguator should encompass both the A's and the Rangers, as consistency with the Rangers – which was brought up in the above RM – was why I closed it that with the current disambiguator. I think it's worth the discussion, but it should be done for both teams; would anyone a) object to the Rangers being added to the RM and b) change their mind if the Rangers were added? (ping @DrewieStewie, 162 etc., Spanneraol, Assadzadeh, Omnis Scientia, and Spesh531:) Sceptre (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would add that New York Giants (baseball) would be effected too. To answer you question, I wouldn't change my mind if the Rangers or NY Giants were added. I think its a good disambiguation as is. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  I also oppose any change to the title of Texas Rangers (baseball). 162 etc. (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  While I am more concerned for the title disambiguation for the Athletics, I would not be opposed with the other teams (Rangers, NY Giants, etc) being changed too out of consistency. While my concerns are specific to the Athletics, I wouldn't mind that too. DrewieStewie (talk) DrewieStewie (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (Baseball) is more succinct and clear. Theres no other definition of Athletics in baseball that would require further disambiguation. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Is that immediately clear to non-baseball fans though solely looking at an article title without additional context, especially outside of America and Japan? My contention is that it could be construed as such before opening the article. Athletics (in part due to the As nickname) isn’t as internationally recognizable as a brand name as, say, the Dodgers, Cubs, Yankees, or Red Sox. They may initially think it might refer to athletes who play in baseball. DrewieStewie (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

A glance at the very first sentence of the article would clear that up really fast. And would people who don't know anything about baseball even care? Spanneraol (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Spanneraol. I think this is just splitting hairs. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This reminds me a little of the RM for Modern Baseball from May 2023. While you could argue "athletics" as a broad term has some relation to baseball, it's likely not an encyclopedic topic, especially compared to the actual team. I also think the Athletics are more recognizable than OP suggests; they're really old (obviously) and Moneyball is probably one of the most oft-referenced sports movies from this century, so I'd imagine anyone with any basic knowledge of US sports would know who they are. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as with above, but additionally because the "Athletics of Baseball" as you would presume is hardly the primary topic for the term Athletics, doesn't even have its own dedicated article. Furthermore, from the PDAB of Athletics the majority of people are going to this baseball team and less than half of that amount goes to Sport of Athletics. And with that contributing to less than a single percentage of all viewers on the "sport" even the broader term of Athletics is not how people are find it. So there is really no actual confusion or misdirection going on, and without an actual target to assert itself as a potential PRIMARYTOPIC it is hard to argue otherwise. TiggerJay (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)