Talk:Cleveland Browns

Not the only team named after a person

It says, "[the Browns] are the only team named after a person." That's not true: the Buffalo Bills are named after Buffalo Bill (aren't they?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk • contribs) 05:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have reliable source for this? 107.0.17.203 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

How many 50's championships?

In the "infobox" for the Browns, the following line appears:

League championships won: AAFC: 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949. NFL: 1950, 1954, 1955, 1964.

Yet the section "NFL Dominance follows AAFC Dominance" concludes with the clause:

...the Browns simply resumed their dominant position among pro football teams, ... capturing four championships during the 1950s.

So is there a missing championship in the infobox, or did the Browns only win three championships in the 50's? The Browns are widely known as "The Clowns" to NFL fans, should we include that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.42.227 (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

— DLJessup 16:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Browns only won three championships in the '50s. This is now reflected in the article.--Batard0 (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Retired numbers

There should be an explanatory note about #45 Don Fleming, ie, who was he and why is his number retired. Hanksummers (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about the Browns, so when I read the intro paragraph I thought that they were now a defunct team because the intro part makes absolutely no mention of the fact that the Browns returned in 1999 (something I had to find out by scrolling way down into the article). I would rewrite it myself, but as I said I know nothing about the Browns. Qutezuce 17:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Be my guest. For reference, you should also read the intro to Baltimore Ravens too. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Mascot

He looks suspiciously like one of the Snap, Crackle and Pop Elves. --Sliat 1981 04:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So does every post-war era elf character. What's your point? --Heavy (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Browns' unoffical mascot is an elf known as a Brownie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TopShelf17 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Slight correction. Brownie the Elf isn't the team's mascot and/or unoffical mascot. It is considered an "alternate" logo as a tribute to the Browns' era prior to Art Modell. Reebok produces many Browns merchandise with using the Elf (www.clevelandbrownsteamshop.com). The only mascots for the Browns are the 4 dogs (dawgs) named: CB, Chomps, TD, and Trapper. JohnnySeoul (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Browns official mascot from 1993-1995 was named Rover Cleveland, resembled a brown bulldog, and wore the number 0. A contest was held by the organization during mini-camp and the pre-season and was won by Seth Task, 24, a native Clevelander. He held the position until he resigned when Art Modell announced the team was moving to Baltimore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.249.106.34 (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Alfred Lerner

On the Browns sleeves, they wear an "AL". I believe this is a recognition of former owner Alfred Lerner, who is credited with bringing the Browns back to Cleveland in 1999. Does anyone know if I'm right?

It's actually in memorium of his death from cancer in October 2002.

• This is already mentioned in the "Logo and uniforms" section of the article: "...to honor Al Lerner who died in 2002 after buying the resurrected team in 1999..." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Uniform

During a sizable period after their 3 heartbreaking playoff losses in the eighties the Browns used only their away (white) jerseys, even for home games. As far as I know they are the only team to have done so. I'd like to see a mention of this and a fleshing out of it if anyone has some details or can source the specifics of it. It is a unique and interesting aspect of Browns history and it would be nice to see it mentioned if anyone has accurate information. Velophile (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I have reverted back to the version before the mention of the team colors being a tribute to the BGSU Falcons. Two reasons: first, I've heard several accounts of where the colors came from, and this is the first time in my 30 years of following the team that I've heard (or read) BGSU mentioned as the inspiration. Secondly, if in fact this is the case, well then we need to cite it. Legitimacy is gained only through proper channels, and Wikipedia standards require citations. This page is incredibly long, and it adding even more stuff to it -- particularly stuff without citations -- is taking us in the wrong direction. I am going to begin overhauling the page, citing what can be cited, removing what is fluff, opinion, or obvious speculation. Ryecatcher773 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.bgsusports.com/mambo/content/view/200/70/

• Interesting, but not necessarily the reason Paul Brown chose the colors. First off, what you said, and what this mention on the Falcons page says are two different things.

Here’s what you’re saying:

The team's colors, seal brown and orange, are inspired by those of Bowling Green State University. The Browns' first coach, Paul Brown, observed the BGSU football Falcons' color scheme and adopted it for his team of professional gridders. The Browns, for many of their seminal years, held training camp on the BGSU campus.

Here’s what the BGSU website says:

Legend has it that Leon Winslow, an industrial arts faculty member, got the idea from watching a women’s hat on a bus to nearby Toledo, Ohio. He liked the brown and orange color combination. So too, did former Cleveland Browns head coach Paul Brown. Following a trip to BGSU in the 1940s, Brown used the colors for his All-America Conference team.

Yes, they are saying says he liked the colors, but there also is nothing there mentioning Massillon Washington High School’s colors – which are also Orange (and today black instead of brown) which is where Brown coached for his hometown from 1932-1940. I don’t know where exactly I read it, and I will post it when I find it, but I seem to remember Brown being quoted that he chose the color brown for the uniforms because it hid the football better. The bottom line is, we do not know for sure why he chose those colors with 100% surety... but, I mean, his last name was Brown, the team was called ‘The Browns’, what color would you guess he'd want? Aqua? Ryecatcher773 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Cleveland Browns' official colors are seal brown, burnt orange and white. See the Browns' offical web site.

Actually, they're not. When the franchise was re-formed in 1999, the Browns altered the colors subtly. They also changed the descriptions to simply "Brown" and "Orange." SSUR.org compiles its database from the team's official style guide.[1] I can find no reference to "Seal Brown" on the Browns' website, nor can I find a reliable primary source to contradict the SSUR. I'm going to adjust the infobox. If anybody can demonstrate that they are wrong, please correct, but until then it's the most reliable source we have. SixFourThree (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

PcGnome (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps my brain if a bit fried, but "why orange" seems highly elusive to me. That there are other teams that use orange, just pushes back the question. Yahoo answers says "because they were told to change the white helmet", but still no answer to "why orange". Now I'm off to ask the exact same question about the color of the Golden Gate Bridge ...

PcGnome (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul

I have begun to overhaul the article in the name of keeping it a bit more concise. As a lifelong Browns fan for 30 years, I understand that passions run high about our team. That being said, however, there is plenty of space that can be freed up. Links connecting names to their own histories (e.g. Chuck Noll has his own article, no need to take up Browns space talking about the Steelers) can eliminate some of this fluff. Also, opinions, overheated language and possessive claims made in print on Wikipedia (I deleted the words "our team") create neutrality issues. In any case, through removing what were mostly redundancies, the article went from 64 to 62 KBs already. If you want to weigh in on this, feel free. But let's talk about it first before we just go headlong into any conflicts. Ryecatcher773 03:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think you need a brief paragraph in the lead introduction section about the Art Modell-1995 relocation controversy. There are still users that come in here with the misconception that the current Browns are a 1999 expansion team, and not the fact that the Browns' franchise, colors, and history has been technically continuous since the 1940s. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that they are an expansion team. The colors and history are only a benefaction of legal technicality. Earnest Byner being traded for Mike Oliphant, regardless of how many degrees of separation you may try, has no connection to anyone currently on the roster. Meanwhile, Matt Stover was a drafted by the Giants and signed on as a free agent with the Browns in 1991, yet his career record shows he has only played for the same team since 1996 -- even though the Browns' entire roster moved to Baltimore in 1996. If you really want to avoid confusing people who have no previous idea of who the Browns are, or who Art Modell is for that matter, then do not put it in the opening paragraph. Save it for a subsection. It is an expansion team. We had an expansion draft. There are just some strange circumstances surrounding it, and the only reason we even got that was because the NFL was politicking to avoid bad press. Ryecatcher773 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Article should be split into Cleveland Browns (1946-1995) and Cleveland Browns

The article is too long and in reality these are two different teams anyway. One was a team that moved to Baltimore to become the Baltimore Ravens and the other one is objectively speaking a new expansion team which used the same name and logo as the team that moved to Baltimore. I know that fans and the NFL spin it differently but that is the objective fact!

Regardless, there is also precedent for such a split when an article is overly long. Consider the AT&T article which was split up into American Telephone & Telegraph (1885-2005) and AT&T. And unlike the fantasy of the Cleveland Browns (1999-present) and Cleveland Browns (1949-1995) being a continuous entity, AT&T before and after 2005 merger was in objectively reality an actual continuous entity but it still was split anyway.

So I propose that the article be split into two just like the AT&T article. Who else writes in support? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nayra (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not completely against some kind of a split, but I think a wiser move may be what I have asked for previously -- a massive reduction in the amount of information given (and yes, it will probably take more work to do so). Look at the article as it is now, taking the uniform and logo section as an example: is it really that important to go into such detail about the socks and sleeve striping? No. A basic mention that the helmets began as white, and moved to orange is sufficient. We are not talking about the L.A. Kings here. The colors are orange and brown and pretty much have always been. The team is unique in the NFL in that it has no true logo. The article should resemble a basic entry about the team. Mention a few highlights and famous players and be done with it. Every season doesn't need to be mentioned in yearbook fashion -- this is, after all, Wikipedia, not a Browns website. What we need is a dedicated group of people to drastically reduce the size of the article. Ryecatcher773 04:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a split. Its not a "spin" by the NFL. The Browns of now are the same. The team was basically on hiatus and the the history, players, records, and all-time statistics of the Browns 1995 and before belong to the current franchise. It is the same team. The Baltimore Ravens were considered a brand new franchise. BrainyIowan 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for a split. The two teams are separate. 70.61.100.232 02:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

They are, but at the same time they aren't. But whatever, I've already moved enough stuff into a second article (Cleveland Browns Archives) that the article shouldn't be too long now. A split isn't needed. Ryecatcher773 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ravens were not considered a brand new franchise any more than the Carolina Hurricanse were a brand new franchise despite having moved from Hartford. The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore. The original Cleveland Browns information should not even be on this page, it should be on the Baltimore Ravens page, and this page should be about the modern Cleveland Browns. This is like considering the Ottawa Senators that folded in 1935 (as the St. Louis Eagles) the same franchise as the one that exists now. I don't even understand why this is being debated. It is not the name of the team that defines its history, it is the franchise itself. The classic Browns are now the Ravens.74.108.86.3 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am totally oppose to such a split. The current organization, the NFL, the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and even the Ravens officially consider the entire Browns history, players, records, and all-time statistics from 1946-present as continuous. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

They can consider it whatever they want. We all know what happened. If I moved from my house and a family of the same name moved in, we could all say it is the same family but it is oviously not. 74.108.86.3 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything, this article should be split in the same way that Chicago Bears was split before being promoted to featured article status:

History of the Chicago Bears	History of the Cleveland Browns
List of Chicago Bears players	List of Cleveland Browns players
Chicago Bears seasons	Cleveland Browns seasons
Chicago Bears statistics	Cleveland Browns statistics

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but whoever keeps putting comments in about how there needs to be two different articles for the "Original" Cleveland Browns and New Cleveland Browns really need to check their "objective facts". The Cleveland Browns are THE Cleveland Browns. As previously stated, the history, records, and all-time statistics are owned by the Browns. We (the fans of the Cleveland Browns) took it to the Supreme Court. The NFL ensured that Cleveland would have it's team back, yes we are considered an expansion team ([[ == expansion ==]] NOT a new franchise!!!). If you're going to try to edit something or add your thoughts please at least be semi knowledgeable about the subject you try to challenge.

I agree. According to the NFL, which is the final authority on the matter, the Browns are considered to have suspended operations. The fact that their entire roster transplanted to Baltimore has nothing to do with it. When they left Cleveland, they ceased being the Browns. Primium mobile 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the NFL is not the final authority in this situation. In this case it is a propaganda machine, spin doctoring the news. One of the most revered & sucessful franchises the league's history not moving? Excuse me? That is pure 'spin'. Getting an expansion team is one thing, but to transfer the entire roster of players and front office personnel is an entirely different matter. This current version of the Browns is not the same team that Otto Graham, Jim Brown, Bernie Kosar, et al. played for. That team is now in Baltimore. Sure, we were given the "Browns" name, and colors as a salve to our wounded pride (not to mention a gawd awful ugly new stadium), but to insist that the current team and the past version of the team have a shared history is a fantasy bordering on irrationality.

By all means, split the article into two sections dealing with the original Browns from the AAFC through 1995 (which should be cross linked to the article on the Baltimore Ravens) and a post 1999 article dealing with the expantion team that currently has that same name Cleveland Browns. It's the only logical thing to do, it's the "Right" thing to do.Hx823 03:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First, legally speaking, the NFL is the final authority. The Browns are a licensed property of the NFL, and it was by the NFL's good grace that football returned to the shores of Lake Erie in the first place. Anyone who wishes to question the NFL's ultimate authority on who plays and where should go talk to the citizens of Los Angeles. Second, the argument about Graham, Kosar et al. is as tired as it is silly: those guys never played home games in Baltimore. They played their home games as Browns in Cleveland, same as the current Browns Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow do. It's not a matter of the three years the team wasn't around. Cleveland is still Cleveland, the football team is still called the Browns, and the NFL's historical records count the two incarnations as one continuous entity. Your argument is an opinion so far as the NFL would be concerned, and opinions fall into the WP:NOT category.Needless to say, I oppose any split. Ryecatcher773 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The NFL may be, as you say, "the final authority", but that doesn't make them automatically right. It took lawsuits and treats of lawsuits to even get the "Browns" name and colors back to Cleveland. That doesn't sound like "on hiatus" to me. And I believe that one of the judges commented after the settlement that based on the cases presented, Art Modell would have lost and been forced to honor the contract with the Stadium corp. It has been conjectured that in that instance, Modell would have ended up selling the team (maybe to Bob Gries or Al Lerner) and they would have remained in Cleveland. So the name and the colors would have gone to Baltimore. And that's "on hiatus"? I think not! As far as the "historical records" from the NFL go, history is always written by the winner. The NFL won, the football fans of Cleveland lost. That's plain and simple. This part is probably going to get deleted but... using *your* logic, the two AHL Cleveland Barons and one NHL Barons hockey teams were all the same, just variations on the term "hiatus". Split the article!! (compromise-delete the whole thing, it will never be objective in the sense that is needed for *any* type of encyclopedia or reference material.Hx823 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The National Football League considers the pre- and post-hiatus Browns as one team. That is as objective as it can possibly be. Can you provide an objective reference that declares they are officially two different teams? If not, then all the split arguments boil down to point-of-view opinions about what defines a team, and as such they cannot be used in Wikipedia to justify edits. On the other hand, the article should include relevant, referenced facts about the hiatus because it is an important part of the team's history. Carboncopy 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How objective can the NFL be when they and Art Modell were facing lawsuits over the matter? They were going to be embarassed over the situation and needed to put a 'spin' on it hence the whole fantasy of placing the Browns "on hiatus" and then raising them from the dead three years later. A team is a group of people working for a common goal or objective. Until 1995, we has a group of people wearing orange and brown working toward the objective of winning football games and reaching the Super Bowl. For three years there was no group of people wearing orange and brown working toward the objective of winning football games and reaching the Super Bowl. No TEAM! No Continuity! To have anybody say that there is continuity there is just plain fantasy. Do they believe in the tooth fairy, too? They must.

You tell a big enough lie loud enough and long enough and to enough people, it will be accepted as truth. THAT is what the NFL is doing.Hx823 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing by asking 'what was the NFL to do?' is speculating, and speculation is not a justification to bypass the fact of the matter, which is the law of the NFL. Are these the same Browns I watched as a kid? No... but according to the NFL, it's one continuous franchise. That's the long and the short of it. How we see it is irrelevant in those terms. Brady Quinn's eventual career numbers will appear on the same franchise list of numbers as Otto Graham, Frank Ryan and Bernie Kosar. It doesn't matter how objective the NFL is, and it certainly, so far as Wikipedia is concerned, doesn't matter what we feel is proper or true. The limit of the law (and in this case, the law is the NFL as it is their league, their liscensed property, and their authority that every team must bend a knee to) states it is one franchise. That's it. It's the NFL's decision. Study law long enough and you'll come to realize that while you might not feel comfortable with how the law is set up, or who makes the laws and for what reason, doesn't mean a hill of beans. The court must comply with what the lawmakers and the judge interprets whether or not the law has been adhered to --- and in this case, the NFL serves as Judge, Jury, Executioner and Legislative body. There are no 'objective facts' to check or to be considered. The fact is, the NFL made the ruling and that's how it is. See WP:NOT on POV and Original Thought if you have any questions as to why what the NFL says stands in an encyclopedia article.

And BTW, to whomever made the comment, the continuity argument regarding the NHL Barons and the two AHL Barons isn't even close to a comparison as the NHL Barons were never connected to the two either of the AHL Barons. The original AHL team ceased operations in 1973 as the Jacksonville Barons, and the new AHL team began in Kentucky. The NHL team, which began in Oakland and only took the name of the AHL team, merged with the Stars in 1978. They played in different leagues and shared no history -- and most importantly, there is no connection made by the governing bodies in either league. A better argument might have been for the two incarnations of the Ottawa Senators, but again, it goes by what the league wants. Ryecatcher773 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So you admit the NFL is not objective? Then why is the NFL supplying non-objective information for what is supposed to be an unbiased reference website? Isn't that the transmission of propaganda? And the whole argument about the Cleveland Barons was merely to illustrate the ridiculousness of the NFL's stand on this matter. You liken the NFL rulings to the law. Even laws can be changed or removed (re:the laws that permitted segregation in the south). Constitutional amendments can be repealed (look at Prohibition). Nothing man-made is ever, ever 100% etched in stone.76.241.139.243 (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I liken the NFL Executives to the law. Because, they are the law as far as the NFL goes. What, you think the fans make the rules? Your argument about laws changing and the NFL not being an objective source is flawed in its reasoning: A) The NFL is a private entity, and an oligarchy at that. Laws in the public realm change because lawmakers change them... Example: we, as US citizens (i.e. members of a republic), have a legislative body that makes our laws based on what the people want. The NFL, being private, makes its rules and changes its rules when its board members feel like it. B) There are no unbiased sources -- only unbiased ways of presenting info on Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedic article). Our task is to cite facts, not give our opinions on how we view the facts. The NFL says the Browns are one continuous team from 1950-2007 (1946-1950 it was an AAFC team), then that's what they are. Period. The Ravens are, according to the NFL, an expansion team that started in 1996. Period. There is no need to split the article. The team was mothballed for 3 years, not three decades. The colors are the same, the NFL combines the records regardless of whether it makes sense to us, the stadium is in the same spot, they play in the same City of Cleveland, the same people watch them play and they are called the Cleveland Browns.It's a matter of how you want to look at it. We're both fans, right? I'm looking at the facts. You are looking at it as some kind of scam, which is your right, but not so far as changing the Wikipedia article goes. It's sufficient to point out in the article that the team went through a crisis of sorts in 1996... and I believe the article has a decent sized section that makes that abundantly clear. But, whatever. We are obviously not going to agree. Happy Thanksgiving anyway. Go Browns. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument to split the article has some merit. Obviously, the NFL did split some hairs when it allowed Art Modell to take his whole organization to Baltimore and give it a new name and colors, but call it an expansion team. But that's what the NFL officially says the Ravens are, and the current Browns are just a resumption of the old team. I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to arbitrarily say the NFL made a bad decision, and adjust accordingly. The Ravens don't claim any of the Browns' past history; if anything, they claim the legacy of the old Baltimore Colts even though the Colts still exist in another city. I see both sides of the argument, but vote to leave this as it is. Jsc1973 (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the NFL did a lot of splitting (read: spin doctoring). But in an previous section, ryecatcher773 admits that this Browns team is an expansion team. And by the very definition of an expantion team, that means that there is no continuity bewtween these entities. Hence (just as an example) Braylon Edwards has not tied a TD reception record, but has set a new record for this expansion team. I also resent the implied comment that I am not looking at the facts in this matter. Now this matter with Baltimore/Indy Colts and the Cleveland/Baltimore Browns/Ravens; Indy should claim the legacy of the "Colts". The Ravens should claim the legacy from the first year of their existence as the Ravens and this Browns team should claim it's own legacy from 1999, this first year of its existence. The legacy of the first Cleveland football team to be named Browns ends in 1996. The article is way too long to begin with, so a bit of a compromise: split the article three ways, part one-early years (or first half of history 1946-1971), part two-later years (or 1972-1996), part three-current team (1999-present). I can't say go Browns, because they already have gone-to Baltimore!Hx823 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article is too long, certainly the hiatus is a logical place to split it. But if it is split, it should be done so because the length requires it, NOT because of a philosophical opinion about what constitutes a continuous NFL team. As far as the official People who record the official Records, the Cleveland Browns did not move nor lose claim to previous records. For Wikipedia to declare them to be two different teams would not agree with the official standing of the NFL, and would therefore be in error. Carboncopy (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have offered a compromise similar to this since the article is too long (among other things) to begin with. After all, if you subscribe to the theory that this is one contiguous franchise (which obviously, I do not), then it has been in existance for over 60 years and there is just too much history and detail to be encased in a single article. So on that basis alone, there is justification for splitting the article. And as you say, "The Hiatus" is the logical place to begin to split it.03:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hx823 (talk • contribs)

Hold on a second Hx823... let's see if I have this right:

But in an previous section, ryecatcher773 admits that this Browns team is an expansion team. And by the very definition of an expantion team, that means that there is no continuity bewtween these entities.

You're saying that my own admission justifies the argument for splitting? You obviously must have mistaken me for a member of the NFL board of directors. Yes, of course I see this team for it being an expansion franchise, but so what? That's not an indictment that will stand long enough to finish a cup of coffee. It does not matter what I or you or anyone else outside the NFL Commissioner's office thinks. The fact of the matter, by decree of the governing body of the league, which is the absolute end all be all of this argument, is that the current Browns are NOT an expansion team. Period. Go to law school for a semester. If you haven't gotten it by the end of the first week, you'll surely understand come midterm that opinions mean nothing with regard to what is explicitly written in the letter of the law. The NFL says it's a continuation, then that's what it is. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The NFL was politicking to avoid bad press. Boy that sure sounds like spin doctoring to me. The same thing applies to the Colors and History (attributed to legal technicalities). Basically the NFL took a condesending attitude to the whole matter. Also, the whole tone of the previous post is close to being unprofessional not to mention not addresing other points made. And certainly lacking in an apology for implications made about me.Hx823 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The only points being made concern speculation and opinions, which have nothing to do with what goes into a Wikipedia article. It's not an expansion team according to the NFL. Case closed. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather high-handed and egotistical view there (unless, of course, you are CEO of WP. Then I supposed you would be entitled to it.). And again the compromise offer is ignored (you can't be protecting a little fifedom since all can edit WP) and no apology is offered. What am I to conclude from that? That you're ignoring me? No, you've responded to *some* of the points raised. And I am not certainly casting aspersions in your direction. I am trying to AGF with you, but you are making it difficult by ignoring points being made and an offer of compromise.Hx823 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify my comment. The Hiatus is "one" logical place to split, but it is not necessarily the best. I think the best place to split would be 1970, or whenever the SuperBowl was first played. That is certainly a watershed moment in American pro football. For example, the Browns have always been pitied for never having won or played a SuperBowl--the long history of being a powerhouse for years before that--right up to the seasons on the threshold of the Superbowl era-- is forgotten. Might as well archive that. Carboncopy (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Carboncopy, if you'll note one of my previous postings, I offered a similar compromise with the small exception that part one would be 1946-1971 (rather than 1970, but I do see your point about the Super Bowl), part two would be 1972-1996 and part three would cover the current incarnation from 1999 to present (and beyond). Personally, I really think that is a fair compromise (but that is just IMHO).Hx823 (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the team history on this page is unnecessary since there is an entire page called History of the Cleveland Browns. Removing redundant info would greatly reduce the length of this article. My personal opinion is that the suggestion to follow the example of the Chicago Bears articles makes the most sense (see above) and break off articles on different aspects of the team rather than the controversial nature of the continuity of the Browns since 1996. No matter what each of us personally believes, the Cleveland Browns are legally the same entity that has played in Cleveland since 1946. That is a fact and Wikipedia articles must reflect facts, not opinion. It is, however, also a fact that many fans both in and out of Cleveland do not consider them the same entity. The Baltimore Ravens page addresses this the best mentioning terms like "the Modell Organization" in an early paragraph while still acknowledging the legal fact that the Ravens are considered a 1996 expansion team. Everyone knows the Ravens weren't formed like a typical expansion team and that they were, in reality, the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore, just as the Browns were "reborn" in 1999 by way of an expansion draft, just like a typical expansion team (Houston, Carolina, Jacksonville, etc.). That said, there was a Cleveland Browns Trust (mentioned in this article, but I didn't see it in the separate History article) that existed from 1996-1999, something not seen in a typical franchise relocation. Was the NFL trying to save face? Probably, though they were also trying to avoid the dozens of legal suits filed by the city of Cleveland and fans over the move. Whatever their motives, the main parties that matter in this argument: the NFL, the Cleveland Browns, and even the Pro Football Hall of Fame and the Baltimore Ravens consider the Browns to be a continuous entity beginning in 1946 down to the present. We should look at other NFL team pages (particularly ones of older teams with longer histories) to see how their pages have been broken up and organized. Like I said, the suggestion regarding the Chicago Bears articles was the best I've seen. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The history section needs to be either drastically reduced (short summaries for each period) or eliminated completely (with a 'see this page' link) since the History of the Cleveland Browns page exists. That will really trim this page significantly. I will do what I can, but to any other editors please feel free to remove redundant info on this page and move necessary info to the history page.--JonRidinger (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this history section be edited to reflect the corrected wording (w/reference) of the currenty existing article dealing with the history of the Browns? At least until the cleanup and reduction of this article?Hx823 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Pats1 ^T/C 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should be expanding the history section on this article at all. If anything, start trimming it. I'd say close to 90% of this section doesn't need to be here at all since it's already on the History of the Cleveland Browns page. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment was meant as an interim measure until the history section can be switched to that article and this one can be linked to it. I didn't want it to come across as a major rewrite or expansion of the article. Hx823 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you meant a major rewrite. I was just saying if you're going to go to the trouble of including the info, it would be better to spend the time trimming the history section down to small summaries of each era. The whole Ravens-Browns franchise argument belongs on the history page as a detail rather than a super-important fact in my opinion. The history section on this page should only include the most important facts about the team, like records that were set or changes made. Most of the history is already on the History of the Cleveland Browns page, so no real need for an interim measure. Check it out. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To Pats1: If you'll go to the article history of the Cleveland Browns, there is a couple of sentences detailing that many fans consider the "old" Browns and the "new" browns as two seperate franchises, but acknowledges that the "official" nfl position is that the Baltimore Ravens is an expansion team (that happened to draft the entire "old" Browns roster in an "expansion draft") and that the current browns are a continuation of the original team. This from the league that refuses to acknowledge any AAFC records from the teams that merged when that league went under. Hx823 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

-I wouldn't say the NFL's had any good grace or that the team owes its existence to such a non-existent thing as the NFL's good grace. I would say that through the settlement of the City of Cleveland's breach of lease lawsuit against Modell et al, the League and the City agreed that the team's prior history from 1944-1995 would be attributed to the team that took the field in 1999, be that team an expansion team or a relocated one. I don't see any point in breaking the team's history up into two parts. Hanksummers (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)hanksummers

If the Sony Records declared that Journey's curent lead singer Arnel Pineda would for now on be legally named Steve Perry and get all Steve Perry gold records and the original Steve Perry would for now on be called Joe Smith. Would that make Arnel Pineda Steve Perry? DLA75 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No. But on the other hand, if the owner of the historic Brown Widget Company in Cleveland wanted to move his business, and the city sued to stop him, they could agree out of court that he could hire the workers and move to Baltimore to set up a new Ravens Widget Company. Meanwhile, the historic Brown Widget Company would cease its business operations for three years while it gets approval to obtain a new owner, new workers, and the proper business licenses to open again. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's hardly analogous. It's not like the NFL is demanding that we start calling Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn by the names "Bernie Kosar" and "Vinnie Testaverde". Zzyzx's example is much more analogous, and indeed much like several real cases throughout history. See for example Pan Am (which has gone through four incarnations since 1991, including a railway), Wells Fargo (which is actually the successor to Norwest and not the same company founded in California in 1852), and-- in a closer analogue-- AOL (became Time Warner when it bought the company in 2000; AOL becoming a separate company later this year).

Officially, the browns whent on a hiatus while the players moved to baltimore. the history remains in cleveland, and the current browns are a continuation of the rich cleveland football history. Dizzizz (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As much as most Cleveland fans would like to believe the "hiatus" idea, they know it is a fallacy, despite what the NFL says. Such a concept is absolutely unheard of in the history of major professional sports. What exactly was different about the move of the Houston Oilers to Tennessee? (Admittedly they kept the name "Oilers" for two years, but this is pure coincidence.) All the players who were Houston Oilers one year were Tennessee Oilers the next, and no one disputes that this is the same franchise now named the Titans. Likewise, all the players who were Cleveland Browns one year were Baltimore Ravens the next, and no one disputes that the current Ravens are the same franchise that first played in Baltimore in 1996. By what twist of logic can anyone claim differently? I'm sorry, long-time Browns fans: your history and your four world championships now belong to Baltimore just as much as all the Colts' history and four Baltimore-era world championships belong to Indianapolis now. Anyone who wants to claim differently must show precedent in which a major sports franchise was allowed a similar hiatus. Of course, this is impossible, since this has never before happened. Football fans know what happened and must by right recognize the Ravens as the true successor of Cleveland Browns (I), and recognize that today's Browns are the Cleveland Browns (II), just as the AL Washington Senators that existed in 1961-1971 (which is today the Texas Rangers) is not the same franchise as the one that existed in 1901-1960 (which is today the Minnesota Twins) - and it wasn't even it moved to Texas. The idea that the law decides this is preposterous. The law can only decide the consequences of facts; it cannot change the facts themselves. "Officially" means nothing when the official position is at odds with the truth. The law cannot make the sky orange even if it issues an "official proclamation" to that effect. 198.203.175.175 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The law most certainly can make the sky orange, if the law decides that what we used to call "blue" is now "orange". Laws almost as ridiculous as that are passed regularly. Things that are legal one day become crimes the next. It happens all the time. If I owned a race team called Dillhole racing and I lost sponsors for three years and had to let my cars sit, my drivers could go to another team. They could form their own team. They could split up if they wanted to. But when I finally obtained sponsorship after my hiatus my team, with its new drivers, would still be Dillhole racing and it would still be the same team. The NFL makes all the rules for this stuff. The NFL decided that the City of Cleveland owned the team and that Modell owned the players. The players are not the team in the same sense that the Secret Service protects not the President, but the Office of the President. Players come and go regularly. The team stays the same. If for some reason the Steelers and Browns decided tomorrow to trade players entirely, the Steelers would still be the team in Pittsburgh and the Browns would still be the team in Cleveland. What Modell did was underhanded and dirty, and the NFL chose to rectify that by making the rulings they did. People on the corner saying the Browns are a different team doesn't mean anything when it comes to the facts. That's merely an opinion based on dissatisfaction with how the NFL chose to handle the situation. I think it's unfair that Cleveland couldn't have defeated Houston in the 1988 AFC wildcard game because the NFL didn't allow 2-point conversions. They've changed that since then, and everyone accepts that. Just because teams have moved before and kept their name doesn't mean that it will or should always happen. The fact is that the NFL says they are one team. So they are one team. Primium mobile (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said! The previous anonymous poster actually said it best: the event involving the Browns move was unprecedented (hence the Wikipedia article Cleveland Browns relocation controversy), so what happened with the Oilers, Colts, or Senators is irrelevant. The way I see it, there's a difference between a "team" from a "franchise". Modell moved the "team" (i.e. personnel) to Baltimore to form a new "franchise" (i.e. the legal recognition from the NFL) known as the Baltimore Ravens. The Browns franchise still existed but had no personnel. If you go to the history of the Baltimore Ravens on their own site, guess what? It starts in 1996, though they use "franchise" like team (1996: "NFL approves franchise move"). They don't count any of the Browns history as their own; in fact, they have a section on the Baltimore Colts for a "Baltimore Football History". Do some fans think differently? Of course, but since the NFL, Baltimore Ravens, and Cleveland Browns all agree on continutity, that some fans consider the Ravens to be the "old Browns" is irrelevant. The only reasons the idea has remained are because the "new" Browns have been so horrible and the Ravens won a Super Bowl in the meantime, plus the whole decline of the Browns-Steelers rivalry/emergence of the Ravens-Steelers rivalry. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The Ip number is correct, although I disagree with the fact that clubs=team=Franchise should always keep there history if they move towns. If thats how things should be to those matter. IF not then the history should always remain in the town, but towns may set up new teams with same name and colors but history and records should count from zero. Since butting the burdance of legacy of another team on an exansion team is never good idea and probably one of the main reason whey the new Browns have been so horrbale. DoctorHver (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The article definitely should be split. The Baltimore Ravens are the original Browns and the only reason the current Browns exist is because of the lawsuit preventing Baltimore from using the name Browns. Sexy8159 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Section on Belichick

"The highlight of the season came from the television side of the season. Bill Belichick was the breakout star of "Browns Insider" which was co-hosted by Jim Mueller. Belichick explained such concepts as "Metcalf up the middle," the brilliance of drafting a fullback with the 11th pick in the draft (the third running back as top pick of the Browns in three of four years) and why the double tightend, one wide-receiver offensive set was unstoppable."

This sounds like it was written by a bitter fan. Can someone do a rewrite? I'm not well versed on this section of Browns history. BrainyIowan 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've already started to clean this up... unfortunately, my time is limited to about ten minute intervals (I have a busy 10 month old son running around!)Ryecatcher773 22:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Key elements of this period (1991-1995) for Browns' fans in my mind (and as I recall) is the growing frustration stemming from AFC Championship losses in the 80's and continuing to grow stronger through the early 90's with losing seasons and earlier playoff defeats. This frustration ends up being focused toward Belichick. The fans' rapport with Kosar, despite his injuries and declining performance, was still far stronger than with anyone else in the organization. Fans saw him as the cornerstone of the team and the team's improving performances as an extension of his since 1986. So the outrage by the fans toward Belichick when he benched Kosar is worsened because the Browns were improving following 3 losing seasons, and because of the immediate circumstances behind his benching: Belichick benched Kosar after Kosar had changed two of Belichick's play calls while in the huddle -- plays which had decidedly positive results compared to what was expected based on the game up to that point. A strongly biased but factually correct recounting by a Cleveland fan[2]. I was suprised that these details weren't included in this article or Bernie Kosar because it is truly one of the most standout moments in the Kosar era of the Browns. It is alluded to in Bill Belichick in a way that just slightly favors Belichick and demonizes Clevelanders. Only Belichick's immense success with New England (which now outweighs Kosar's pro football record) allows Cleveland fans to re-examine their views on this period. Saulrand 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have seen many people vandalising the article, replacing Browns with Clowns. I also have added this to my watchlist and this article is vandalised often. Should we put it up for protection?

-Domovoi 17:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that might be a good idea. Ryecatcher773 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we submit revisions on a protected page? Noticed some info needs updated. Ohgeegeorgie (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced

I added the unsourced tag as this article doesn't have inline references or cite it's sources well enough. See the Chicago Bears for a good example. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing still needs to be improved indeed; it's a work in progress.--Batard0 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Premature

Does anybody else think that the Brady Quinn era begins is a little premature?

I don't think it's premature. In the eyes of the fans and the media, that is how this time will be defined.Chris Nelson 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to refer to this time as the Brady Quinn era is at least a year or two premature. It is idiotic to refer to this as an era when the player in question has not made any meaningful contributions except holding out during the preseason.Hx823 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i do agree that it is a new era starting this year, but as far as saying its the Brady Quinn era, i dont know about that, for he hasnt even played a down in the regular season...maybe, the derek anderson era, but thats a whole different storyFanofranz (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Browns-Broncos Rivalry?

Could this be included considering the teams postseason collisons during the late 80s (The Drive and The Fumble quickly come to mind). WAVY 10 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that there is some hatred between Browns fan and Broncos fans, but i dont think most people would recognize it, until you mentioned the drive or the fumble, unlike the browns and steelers or bengals Fanofranz (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Founded in a year that no football was played

The infobox incorrectly states 1944, the first paragraph states that it was "founded" in '45 and the history section (most acurately IMHO) states 1946. Not a good job of providing clarity. Also nothing referenced. If we are to take the earliest possible date (even if it was a "paper team" then the Pittsburgh football team should have November 12, 1892 as its founding year, or at the very least 1932.

This is a difficult question, because McBride secured the rights to a franchise in the AAFC in late 1944 and then began hiring coaches and players in 1945, but the team didn't start playing until 1946. Most sources seem to say it was established in 1946, so I'd propose going with an official establishment year of 1946, but saying the team's beginnings date to 1944, etc.--Batard0 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Also what is the justification for admitting AAFC titles, last I checked this was the NFL. Has the NFL officially recognized the AAFC? Hholt01 06:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is about the history of the Cleveland Browns. It is not about the history of the National Football League. Saying that something legitimate in the history of the team should be excluded because of non-recognition by the NFL is absurd. Your argument is completely irrelevent.Primium mobile 23:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Pro Football Hame of Fame website lists the AAFC titles (click on the "Facts and Firsts" tab) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AAFC titles are clearly part of the Browns' history, which includes but is not limited to the NFL. Therefore, these titles should be presented exactly as they are: four AAFC championships (and of course four NFL championships.--Batard0 (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As for the date the team was founded, that should be the date initial owner Mickey McBride bought the franchise from the AAFC founder Arch Ward. According to Bill Levy's 1965 book, "Return to Glory: The Story of the Cleveland Browns" LC 65-23356 at page 41, "Formal announcement of the new league was made in Chicago on September 3, 1944, and the Cleveland franchise was awarded to McBride." ~~hanksummers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanksummers (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is true. It's really a question of when the team acquired some kind of legal existence. I said above perhaps we should say 1946, with origins in 1944, but sources (not to mention the facts) are difficult to characterize. If we had some kind of source saying when the Browns were actually founded, i.e. that there was a company that owned an AAFC team in Cleveland, then we'd have something definite, but I doubt we'll ever get that. This is tricky stuff.--Batard0 (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction?

"The 1995 season was a disaster on the field as well. After starting 3-1, the rumors of relocation and the eventual announcement cut the legs out from under the team. They finished 5-11, including a 1-6 record in the seven games after the announcement. When fans in the Dawg Pound became unruly during their final home game against the Cincinnati Bengals, action moving towards that end zone had to be moved to the opposite end of the field. The Browns won, the only game the team won after the news of the Browns' move got out."

On one hand it says that they won two games after the announcement (their record was 3-1 and then 5-11, 5-3=2) and on the other it says , "The Browns won, the only game the team won after the news of the Browns' move got out." - so which is it? Yonatan ^talk 18:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They started 3-1 and finished 1-6 AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT. So to got to 5-11 they had to go 1-4 in between the start and the announcement, that is clear if you add it all up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.99.95 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing Trivia Section

I am removing the trivia section (which is discouraged anyway), because the three items have little value beyond as nuggets of trivia. I don't see how to incorporate them into the article in any meaningful way - if somebody else can, please do so. --Chancemichaels 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Origin of team name

This article states the Browns were not named after Paul Brown, but rather the boxer Joe Louis, going further to state that the idea of the team being named after Paul Brown has just been a long rumor or myth. I can't find any source that backs this statement. As far as I've always known, the Browns were named after Paul Brown. Joe Louis had no ties to Cleveland (he worked in rival city Detroit when he was young). The Joe Louis article makes absolutely no mention of any connection either. Here's how the story is typically presented: "In 1945, Arthur McBride brought the All-America Football Conference (AAFC) team to Cleveland. He ran a newspaper contest to name the team and offered the winner a $1,000 war bond. Many entries suggested the name "Browns" after Head Coach Paul Brown, but Coach Brown felt it wasn't "proper" to name the team after himself. Instead, the winning suggestion was the Panthers. However, there was a semi-pro team called the Cleveland Panthers in the '20s, and the owner still had the rights to the name. So, Coach Brown reluctantly agreed to name the team the Browns." --Heavy 17:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that a new pro football team in the mid-1940s would be named after Joe Louis, who was black, given that pro football was segregated at the time. The Browns were, however, one of the first teams to integrate. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The article says that General C.X. Lewis objected to letting the new Cleveland franchise use the "Panthers" name in 1946. That is impossible because he died in 1926! Someone needs to correct this article.

Fair use rationale for Image:Cleveland Browns B logo.png

Image:Cleveland Browns B logo.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 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. --216.253.95.34 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wearing white at home

“ Until recently, when more NFL teams started to wear white at home at least once a season, the Browns were the only non-subtropical team north of the Mason-Dixon line to wear white at home on a regular basis. ”

Can someone explain what this means? Specifically, I'm wondering which subtropical teams are north of the Mason-Dixon line and wear (or have worn) white at home on a regular basis. --  timc  talk   17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes about as much sense as the title MTV Half-Hour Comedy Hour meant back in the early 90's. Besides the obvious ridiculousness of that sentence, Florida is the only sub-tropical state in the union that has NFL teams... why not just say: "the only team not from Florida" ...Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Browns 1950 Logo.PNG

Image:Browns 1950 Logo.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 ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Appearance with FOX

A while ago, there was a statement in the article's Logos and Uniforms section stating that because the Browns do not have a helmet logo per se, when FOX aired scores in a halftime/postgame recap they would use the color orange to represent the team. I noticed that sentence was removed, so I'm not sure if FOX still does that or if they use an alternate logo to represent the team now (will check DVD's at home). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Browns' Mascots page

Would somebody like to step up to the plate and create a Cleveland Browns Mascots page for CB, Chomps, TD, and Trapper? All 4 are their official mascots and it is still a dead link in the main Browns template. Right now, I do not have the time to create one. Go for it!!! JohnnySeoul (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

expansion draft

This article is desperately missing a big part on how the Browns aquired their players once becoming reactivated. Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.228.107 (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Legends

Would somebody PLEASE reorganize this table chonologically like the HOF table??Hx823 (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

According to https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/team/history/legends, the "Legends" honorees for 2017 and 2018 are listed below. Could the following rows be appended to the "Cleveland Browns legends" table?

2017	30	Bernie Parrish	DB	1959-1966
	74	Tony Adamle	LB/FB	1947–1951, 1954
2018	40	Erich Barnes	DB	1965-71
	51	Eddie Johnson	LB	1981-1990

-- 2607:FCC8:D680:A300:204E:31C5:60A5:55A7 (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

New uniforms in 2009 or 2010?

Has there been any updates in the Cleveland area news whether or not the Browns are getting a new-look uniform for the 2009 season or will be delayed until 2010? JohnnySeoul (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kardiac Kids... 1971-84?

I know my memory isn't as good as it used to be, but I certainly don't recall them being referred to as the Kardiac Kids in any other season save for the 1980-81 season. Anyone else (who would necessarily have to be over the age of 30 to qualify) who actually remembers that season care to weigh in? Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was there. You are right that the Kardiac Kids moniker really only refers to the 1980 season. However, I think it's appropriate to use it to label the section as it is certainly the most memorable part of the 1971-84 stretch. Were those events more recent, I'd be more picky, but this far out I think it is OK to lump it all. Aside from that one season, those years were pretty much identical in level of mediocrity acheivement.Carboncopy (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Browns reactivation

By treating the Baltimore Ravens as an expansion team and the new Browns as a reactivation of the old and supposedly suspended Browns, the NFL totally defied logic and insulted the intelligence of pro football fans, all for the purpose of currying favor with Cleveland fans. The old Browns moved to Baltimore, with its current owner (Modell) and many if not all the players who had played with the Browns. That is a classic case of predecessor franchise and successor franchise. The real expansion team was the new Browns, a brand-new team that had absolutely no right to the records, statistics, or awards compiled by the old Browns. Wearing the old uniforms didn't and doesn't entitle the new team to be identified with the old one. Sorry, Browns fans, but the team records, etc. through 1995 belong in Baltimore, not Cleveland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jherling (talk • contribs) 05:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, believe what you want, but the records are still Cleveland's. You have to also remember that the move really was a surprise to Cleveland fans, maybe not as much as the Baltimore Colts's move to Indy, but close to that. Moreover, the fans really had a passion for the team and had passed a levy that would give the team a new stadium, so such a move that Modell made really would have upset the fans. Given that, the compromise seemed like a small repayment to the fans. CardinalDan (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• One thing you have to remember is that pro sports team owners in North America can't just decide one day to pack up and move. It's a little more complex than that. The NFL requires, among other things, for owners to vote on any major team action such as relocation. An NFL franchise is just that; and the NFL retains rights over what an owner can and cannot do with the team. The fact remains that the NFL decided to give Modell in the Baltimore Ravens what amounted to an expansion team. It's unprecedented, yes, but it's not without rough comparisons to the NFL's earlier days: For example, the Dallas Texans folded in 1952, and the remains of the team became... you guessed it, Baltimore's last team, the "expansion" Baltimore Colts. The only difference is, the Texans' franchise was never reactivated. (Unless the present Houston Texans team counts as a reactivation, which I've not seen claimed.) -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

JeffBillman, the fact that the Colts can claim heritage to the 1952 Dallas Texans is irrelevant to the current case. This would be relevant only if in, say, 1955 another team called the Dallas Texans began play in the NFL and claimed the Texans/New York Yanks/Boston Yanks/Brooklyn Dodgers-Tigers/Dayton Triangles history and were allowed to do so by the NFL. Your comparison is too rough to be of value. 198.203.175.175 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Even so, whether or not all fans consider the pre-1995 and post-1999 Browns to be the same franchise is irrelevant. Legally they are one in the same and the official records of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, NFL, Cleveland Browns, and Baltimore Ravens all support that. Spin or not, it is the reality. Also true is that the Browns case was unprecedented. In all practicality, of course, the team moved to Baltimore in 1995; however, legally only the personel moved and a new franchise agreement was given to Modell for Baltimore. There is a note in this article or one of the other related articles that mentions the "Modell franchise" that touches on the continuity between the pre-1995 Browns and Ravens as a matter of sourced perspective. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hosting Statement

Colek3 (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Per quote in this article "Additionally, Cleveland has not hosted a Super Bowl, making it the only NFL city to have neither hosted nor sent a team to the Super Bowl.[1]" I believe the previous comment is incorrect with regard to the hosting comment - if "hosting" is defined as holding the game locally, this has occurred (or not occurred as it were) in multiple NFL cities - e.g. Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Charlotte, etc. and not just Cleveland who - as your correctly state, has not appeared as a competitor in a NFL Superbowl. [apologies if I posted this incorrectly - I am new]Colek3 (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is correct as written, though perhaps confusing depending on the reader. Cleveland is the only team have BOTH characteristics at the same time: Neither host nor play in a Superbowl. On the other hand, I think it's a statement of dubious value. The reasons for never having hosted a SuperBowl have no relationship to Cleveland's failure to reach the game. The statement implies there's some sort of additional level of failure in evidence. Carboncopy (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The claim may be of questionable noteworthiness, but please note that this claim is sourced: The New York Times affirmed it in the article, "Five Stories With No Super Bowl Chapters" (print date January 31, 2009). That it would be mentioned in a major publication such as the NYT led me to try to reword the claim, instead of removing it as I originally considered doing. -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content

User: 216.183.186.16, please quit removing the following paragraph without first giving reasons to do so:

"A 2006 study conducted by Bizjournal determined that Browns fans are the most loyal fans in the NFL. The study, while not scientific, was largely based on fan loyalty during winning and losing seasons (however, it does not account for the ratio of winning to losing seasons by a team), attendance at games, and challenges confronting fans (such as inclement weather or long-term poor performance of their team). The study noted that Browns fans filled 99.8% of the seats at Cleveland Browns Stadium during the last seven seasons, despite a combined record of 36 wins and 76 losses over that span."

The paragraph is well written and has sources to back up the claims.--Swellman (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fan question

I believe it is Seth McFarlane or Mike Henry is fan of the Browns. McFarlane created Cleveland Brown whose name is based on the Browns and Henry voices him. Can someone please let me know if I'm right. I don't have time to pour over every Family Guy interview to double check on it but I am positive I'm right. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need to have yet another article referencing Family Guy? -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not true, which is why you can't find a source for it. Also, you may be surprised to learn that none of us have the time (or desire) to read every Family Guy interview either. — Bdb484 (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How Come They Didn't Kill the NFL As Well?

The article currently states (with no citation): "The AAFC dissolved after the 1949 season, due largely to the Browns' near absolute domination of the league." The late-1940s Browns were a very strong team, but were they really strong enough to drive the whole rest of the league out of business? They were never more than a game or two better than the 2nd place team. Three of their four AAFC championship games were won by reasonably close margins (less than two touchdowns.) During their first few years in the NFL, they were initially just as dominant as they had been in the AAFC, which raises the question, "Why didn't they kill off the NFL as well?" Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at that point the NFL had several decades' worth of history behind it. Far cry from a new league that one team consistently wins. Still, that's a strong statement and needs a citation. I'm going to pull that one statement out, unless and until somebody can provide a source. SixFourThree (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

The main reason for the dissolution and merger seems to have been a talent war between the NFL and AAFC that was raising player salaries and hence eating into owners' profits. There were numerous "peace" meetings between the leagues leading up to the dissolution and merger, and these talks centered around the issue of competition for talent, although there's no doubt that the Browns' dominance played a role, given that attendance dwindled for games in later years as fans lost interest in lopsided victories. This is all now cited in the article.--Batard0 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Mascot

Chomps is definitely a mascot of the Browns according to this website. In terms of an official logo like the Brownie Elf, no, Chomps is not something the team uses on a logo, but it's the along the lines of Slider for the Indians and Moondog for the Cavaliers; those are definitely mascots, but really have nothing to do with the team name. A mascot can be related to the logo (like at most colleges and high schools), but especially in pro sports mascots do not necessarily need to be reflected by the official logo. I don't think the Brownie Elf ever was a mascot in the sense that someone dressed up as a Brownie Elf and walked around the stadium. The Brownie Elf was much more of a logo than a mascot. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there an unresolved issue on this score? Chomps is called the mascot in the info box and isn't discussed further at this point.--Batard0 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing an irrelevant statement.

"Furthermore, Cleveland has never hosted a Super Bowl, making it the only NFL city to have neither hosted nor sent a team to the Super Bowl."

This is part of the introduction/summary part of the article, and it is true, but it is irrelevant to the history of the Cleveland Browns. It should be deleted from this article and moved to the athletics/sports information regarding Cleveland, Ohio. It is also a misnomer, 'NFL city' is hard to define here, as four NFL teams (the Buccaneers, Giants, Jets, and Patriots) are not representatives of a specific city but larger regions. Out of those, the Patriots are not even headquartered in a city, they are in Foxborough Massachusetts, a small town roughly halfway between Providence and Boston. Some teams don't even have the name of the city they represent in their name, the Arizona Cardinals, Carolina Panthers and Tennessee Titans are all examples (They are headquartered Phoenix, Charlotte and Nashville respectively, and directly represent those cities). Furthermore, hosting a Superbowl does not require being an 'NFL city', Stanford and Pasadena California (Pasadena with FIVE) are at least two examples of a city having stadiums that hosted Superbowl's without ever having headquartered an NFL team. Hosting a Superbowl has more to do with having a proper facility, Jacksonville Florida expanded their stadium in order to host larger events like the Superbowl and the annual NCAA FL/GA game, not because the Jaguars are headquartered in Jacksonville. What I'm getting at here, is that a city hosting a Superbowl and a team making it to a Superbowl are not related, making the statement even more irrelevant, even if the source articles discuss the anecdote (I don't know if they do or not, I didn't read them).

Yes, this is not a significant fact, and in fact Cleveland did host numerous championship games in the pre-AFL-NFL merger years. It has been removed.--Batard0 (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What to do about the logo?

I noticed that the Browns logo has been removed, which I'm assuming is because the logo's image is the same as that of the copyright-protected helmet. Is there anything that can be done to get some kind of fair-use Browns logo on the page, or will the page be stuck with that blank box? LouisianaFan (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been fixed. I'm not sure, however, if the script "Cleveland Browns" that appears on the page is an official logo; I think the helmet logo serves as the team's main official logo, as that's how it seems to appear on its official website. I may be wrong, but it would be nice to clear this up. --Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote from the page:"They are unique among the 32 member franchises of the NFL in that they have a helmet logo". In fact they are unique in that they DO NOT have a helmet logo. Or have I misunderstood something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.128.130 (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is confusing. – Modal Jig (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It was from the source. In addition to not having a logo on the helmet, the Browns primary logo is also unique in that it's just the helmet. I reworded the lead to reflect the uniqueness of not having a logo on the helmet since there didn't seem to be a way to include the uniqueness of the logo itself without it cumbersome or confusing. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The text "The Browns are the only National Football League team without a helmet logo." is inaccurate. Washington at present also has no helmet logo.

History proposal

I propose we model this article on the New York Jets article, the only NFL team page I'm aware of that has achieved GA status. As a first step in doing this, I propose we incorporate most of the historical material on the main Cleveland page into the team history page, saving four or five paragraphs for a brief rundown on the main page. This would shorten the article considerably, but most of the material that's there would be moved and not lost. Doing this, moreover, would make the article more easy to digest, especially for people who aren't fans of the Browns or just need to know the basics. We'd also have to eventually move material on logos and uniforms to their own pages and make some other adjustments, but I think in general it makes sense to model the article after the layout and tone of the Jets article and then go from there. If it's unsuitable, it can always be modified. Logistically speaking, I'd propose 1) creating a four- to six-paragraph synopsis of the team's history and then 2) incorporating detailed historical material into the team history page for further development and then 3) deciding what to do from there.--Batard0 (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A little criticism

1. The devotion of the Cleveland Browns fans is renown
2. This has the makings of a great article
3. Putting a picture of every retired uniform is a bit exuberant. I invite you to delete pictures of retired jersey numbers - it's such a waste of space. It is absolutely abominable and borderline disgraceful to a Brown fan to waste so much space on it.
4. further reading, Brown with Clary - that's not further reading, that's mandatory to be cited
5. per Piascik: The Best Show in Football: The 1946–1955 Cleveland Browns have an arguable place as the greatest football of all time, where's that book in this article?
6. per Maraniss: When Pride Still Mattered, Lombardi learned his trade from Brown
7. per Piascik and Maraniss, a great case can be made that Brown was the greatest football coach of all time

Guys, you gotta get rid of those pictures of those jerseys, it's not high quality stuff Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

listing the present day team roster is off the hook, but as long as you guys are having fun :) Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Difference in orange color

Howdy all. This probably isn't a big deal, but the orange background color in the infobox title (#de6108) doesn't match the orange shown for the team colors in the infobox (#e31942). I'm guessing that infobox title background should be changed, but I'm not seeing where in the template code to change it. Thoughts?--Rockfang (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Name Origin

I have come across many articles suggesting the Joe Louis name origin is a myth. I don't know the definite answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereotonic24 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To further add upon this, the official Cleveland Browns Media Guide from 2011 directly disputes the Joe Louis Narrative on page 127. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeshaw (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Cleveland Browns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120101230537/http://www.riddell.com:80/innovation/history/ to http://www.riddell.com/innovation/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206075415/http://www.clevelandbrowns.com:80/team/history/results/1964_stats.php to http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/team/history/results/1964_stats.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090817094004/http://www.citypaper.com:80/columns/story.asp?id=8519 to http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=8519
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218075525/http://www.clevelandbrowns.com:80/article.php?id=9357 to http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/article.php?id=9357
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080312080041/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/14686579/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14686579/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080229063926/http://www.bizjournals.com:80/specials/slideshow/13.html? to http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/slideshow/13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206075303/http://www.clevelandbrowns.com:80/article.php?id=6887 to http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/article.php?id=6887
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100324200347/http://www.clevelandbrowns.com:80/fans/backers/ to http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/fans/backers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206075318/http://www.clevelandbrowns.com:80/fans/backers/results.php?id=INT to http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/fans/backers/results.php?id=INT
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140503015547/http://djsdoingwork.com/2014/04/21/machine-gun-kelly-visits-the-browns-facilities-photo// to http://djsdoingwork.com/2014/04/21/machine-gun-kelly-visits-the-browns-facilities-photo//

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cleveland Browns

Hello, I am writing this message because I feel like this should be the revision for Template:Cleveland Browns, and not this. My revision (the old revision) is easier for readers to follow, and is also more consistent with other National Football League (NFL) team templates. I am, however reluctant, open to discussion. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: If you wish to discuss the {{Cleveland Browns}} template, then please open a discussion at Template talk:Cleveland Browns. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 16:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

AAFC Championships

The NFL doesn't recognize AAFC statistics. Is there a way that we can point out (when listing the number of league titles for the Browns) that their AAFC Championships aren't recognized the same way as their NFL Championships are (as the AAFC was an inferior league)? The NFL only recognizes the Browns as four time champions, not eight.50.136.139.204 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The template already differentiates between the AAFC and NFL titles. Since this article and template isn't part of the NFL, I don't see why there needs to be any other changes or clarification. The Browns have won 8 league titles: 4 in one league and 4 in another. The reason the NFL doesn't recognize AAFC stats is explained at All-America Football Conference#The AAFC and the NFL record book. In short, it wasn't a merger the way the AFL merged with the NFL in 1970, it was more a case of the NFL taking what were perceived as the three strongest teams at the time, all of whom were in markets that did not have NFL teams (Baltimore, Cleveland, and San Francisco). The Pro Football Hall of Fame, however, does recognize AAFC stats. Pre-merger and pre-Super Bowl AFL teams have a similar setup in the infobox and template with a "league title" for the AFL, such as the 1963 San Diego Chargers. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the NFL recognizes all AFL stats, not AAFC stats. Also, the Pro Football Hall of Fame isn't the same as the NFL.50.136.139.204 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

I would like to request an edit be made to the Cleveland Browns page, indicating the January 5th hiring of Paul DePodesta to replace Ray Farmer. Reference: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14508016/cleveland-browns-hire-new-york-mets-paul-depodesta-chief-strategy-officer Devinwhitford (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Mz7 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

There have been multiple instances of vandalism on this page in the past day, particularly after the hiring of the new head coach. I suggest a protected or semiprotected status be applied. Cultred (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Cultred (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

DePodesta & Brown infobox titles

Given that the president & general manager fields in the infobox are used for both chief strategy officer Paul DePodesta and EVP of football operations Sashi Brown, respectively, as well as the fact that the provided sources define each's role as the "de facto" president/GM, I think we can get away w/ simply placing "de facto" in parentheses for each. The full titles can be limited to the body to avoid cluttering the infobox, particularly as they are not the commonly used terms for WP NFL content. Levdr1lp / talk 16:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As long as the "official titles" are in the body, that's good enough I guess. Of course, using traditional titles like president and GM instead of these cutesy-poo variations like the Browns are using would make life easier, but what are you gonna do? Vjmlhds (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp You really need to get off this thing about labeling DePodesta as "de facto president". What was true 3 years ago doesn't hold water today, as the Browns - who change front office hierarchies and coaches as often as most people change their socks - have completely revamped things since the above discussion took place. DePodesta has fallen down the pecking order, while Haslam son-in-law JW Johnson (EVP) and John Dorsey (GM), have risen. Don't understand why you're being so stubborn about this, other than sheer rigidity and just looking to pick a fight (because you see that it's me making a change and you just can't help yourself). Vjmlhds (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- The front office list from the Browns official website does not say how DePodesta's role may have changed since 2016. You are inferring his role is subordinate to the owners' son-in-law merely based on the list order. While this may be true, it's not explicitly stated (in other words, WP:OR). Mr. Johnson's title of "executive vice president" is also shared by Mr. Jenkins -- and he is listed *below* DePodesta. Moreover, DePodesta's own title has not changed. So the list is vague on "pecking order". And I still don't agree with using a title which is not commonly used in NFL Wikipedia content. Levdr1lp / talk 20:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Levdr1lp Well, now where do we go from here...Jimmy and Dee's daughter Haley and son-in-law JW Johnson are now also listed as owners, with Johnson also having the title of EVP. Also the 4 Haslams are ranked above everyone else, so wouldn't that now clearly make JWJ over DePodesta in the pecking order? Vjmlhds (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- You're confusing two separate issues. First- does either the daughter or son-in-law have an article? No, so they don't belong in the navbox. Second- even if the son-in-law is the new de facto president, you haven't provided any sources to verify that OR claim (I think I made my views on interpreting the list order clear in my last post). Levdr1lp / talk 15:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Levdr1lp Here's an article from Crain's Cleveland Business, detailing Johnson being brought in to the fold, with the eventual plan being to assume full ownership. And within that reference is a link to a CBS Sports article, talking about Johnson's increasing power in the franchise. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I am reverting your edit from last September, largely for the same reasons stated above. Still no source to verify that Mr. Johnson is now "president" (or equivalent). Still more original research -- "increasing power in the franchise", etc. -- those are your words, and regardless if they're true, they do not verify your claim. I also don't see how you could justify removing the Dee Haslam link, who unlike Mr. Johnson actually has a dedicated article. Levdr1lp / talk 14:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Nesting championship navbox(es)

I personally feel like each of the Cleveland Browns' championship titles should be nested, as seen in this diff. My reasoning behind nesting the championship navboxes is that it groups like content, collapses/saves space, and avoids template creep. I welcome any discussion in hopes of reaching consensus here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Charlesaaronthompson- You know there is already a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#nesting NFL Championship navboxes. Levdr1lp / talk 10:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

FirstEnergy Stadium naming history

It is a well-known fact that FirstEnergy Stadium was originally known as Cleveland Browns Stadium when it opened in 1999. As such, the stadium's former name of Cleveland Browns Stadium should be included in the infobox of the main article. The stadium's website even says as much, as seen here: "Built in 1998 as the new Cleveland Browns Stadium, and renamed FirstEnergy Stadium in January 2013, it is situated on the same ground where tradition-rich Cleveland Municipal Stadium stood for 50 years and where the Browns won eight league championships and 16 men earned enshrinement into the Pro Football Hall of Fame." So it is accurate for WP to say that FirstEnergy Stadium was originally known as Cleveland Browns Stadium, when it opened in 1999. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to prove the former name of the stadium. Believe me when I tell you that everyone here knows that. I don't think Levdr1lp reverted the edit because of a factual error, but more a formatting issue. Do the former names of a given stadium need to be included on the team article, particularly in the infobox? That's what needs to be decided. Really, that is something that would be better discussed at WT:NFL. Template:Infobox NFL team doesn't really give much insight as the instructions for the "stadium_years" parameter only says "A bulleted list of the team's previous and current home fields (current stadium should be bolded)". I posted at the NFL project page to hopefully generate some broader discussion and consensus. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

JR is correct: I am well aware of the stadium's former name. I removed it from the infobox to reduce clutter, and I am reverting back to that same version until consensus is reached here or elsewhere. This article is about the Browns, not the venue they play in, and there is nothing which prevents readers from following the link to the FirstEnergy Stadium article which details a variety of historical facts on the venue, including its former name. Levdr1lp / talk 17:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Those are similar to my thoughts as well, basically that former names are details beyond the WP:SCOPE of this article. While this one doesn't add a significant amount of info, I'm thinking of instances like the Miami Dolphins or Oakland Raiders where their home stadium has had a long succession of names on top of former venues. It doesn't really help the reader understand the topic of the article (which is the team) to know that the stadium has had different names in its history, and live Lev said, if they really want to know more, they can go to the article on the stadium. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we should go with less clutter and just the current name, as is the current way on the article. Infoboxes are not meant to be all-encompassing, and how would this look nice for stadiums with multiple former names, like Oakland Alameda Coliseum? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cleveland Browns. 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/20081208202716/https://www.sportsline.com:80/nfl/story/10605249 to http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10605249
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930155325/https://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=41941 to http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=41941
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930125814/https://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=43681 to http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=43681
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930130329/https://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=44131 to http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=44131
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/article.php?id=8699
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/teams.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503012507/https://www.americanownews.com/story/23541972/browns-to-induct-fiss-gibron-to-legends to http://www.americanownews.com/story/23541972/browns-to-induct-fiss-gibron-to-legends

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) 18:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cleveland Browns. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.myfoxcleveland.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=8155939&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.myfoxcleveland.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=8158822&version=10&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222021052/http://www.orble.com/elvis-and-henry-aarons-favorite-football-team/ to http://www.orble.com/elvis-and-henry-aarons-favorite-football-team/

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) 09:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

TheChiefBear (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleveland Browns

Just to clarify Yesterday I had a conversation(by or via Chat) with a Cleveland Browns guy on the Official Cleveland Browns website. And I asked him if the Cleveland Browns is a (new) Franchise starting in 1999. And his answered was YES. It is a NEW FRANCHISE. And of course they keep all the historical data from 1945 to 1995 (Records, Stanings, PlayOffs, etc.etc.) If you have any doubt regarding this answered I suggest you to ask( by or via Chat) to one of the guys of Cleveland Browns. Have a nice afternoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.162.253.171 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If Wikipedia is going to be factual, there has to be separation between the original Browns (nee Ravens) and the 1999 expansion Browns (current). This article is very misleading.

There was a lengthy discussion about this several years ago. See it above at Talk:Cleveland Browns#Article should be split into Cleveland Browns (1946-1995) and Cleveland Browns. Bottom lines: First, a "chat with a Cleveland Browns guy" doesn't constitute a reliable source. Further, the opinion of a Browns media employee is just that: an opinion. Second, the NFL, Baltimore Ravens, Cleveland Browns, and Pro Football Hall of Fame all consider the current Cleveland Browns to be the franchise founded in 1946 while the Baltimore Ravens were established in 1996. This is also covered in Cleveland Browns relocation controversy. As far as records and team histories go, the Ravens start in 1996 and the Browns were officially suspended for three seasons, then "restocked" by way of an expansion draft, and resumed in 1999. Had another team moved to Cleveland before 1999, that team would've inherited the Browns' history as well. Yes, we all know in reality, the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1996, but legally, that's not how the NFL records it with stats. In short, the Browns franchise never moved; the team (players and personnel) moved to Baltimore and Modell was awarded a new franchise and the Browns franchise remained in Cleveland as a trust. In other cases of teams moving, records, colors, etc. all went with the team (i.e. the franchise moved too, like with the Raiders, Rams, Chargers, and even in rebranding cases like the Oilers becoming the Titans). --JonRidinger (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Cleveland Browns. 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://www.webcitation.org/6KUMtE07F?url=http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19501217BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19501217BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6KUNX9BJz?url=http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19501224BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19501224BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110908162646/http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19511216BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19511216BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001165003/http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19511223BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19511223BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001165011/http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19521228BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19521228BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001165017/http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19531227BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19531227BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512034635/http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19531115BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19531115BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68UOfTvFW?url=http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19541226BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19541226BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001165031/http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19551226BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19551226BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68UQej1fm?url=http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19571229BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19571229BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68UWzQl1D?url=http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19581214BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19581214BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68UX2pmtm?url=http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19581221BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19581221BROWNS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623012714/http://www.cleveland.com/nfl/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fsports%2F1248597145139770.xml&coll=2 to http://www.cleveland.com/nfl/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fsports%2F1248597145139770.xml&coll=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930231341/http://www.newsnet5.com/sports/browns/newschannel-5-cleveland-browns-unveil-new-programming-sunday-march-8th to http://www.newsnet5.com/sports/browns/newschannel-5-cleveland-browns-unveil-new-programming-sunday-march-8th
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001031927/http://www.newsnet5.com/sports/browns/mike-patrick-joins-solomon-wilcots-on-browns-preseason-tv-broadcast-team to http://www.newsnet5.com/sports/browns/mike-patrick-joins-solomon-wilcots-on-browns-preseason-tv-broadcast-team

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) 04:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for edit to Browns-Lions Rivalry Section, and a new section for 2017 0-16 season.

This section should be revised to update that both teams have had a 0-16 season. The Lions went winless in 2008 and the Browns later did so in 2017. Many fans from both teams are trying to compare these teams to try to determine who is worse. They are split between the 2017 Browns and the 2008 Lions. Another suggested edit for a new section in the main article would be to mention the 0-16 season and the fan-made parade that followed. Gboss314159 (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please edit offensive quality control

Hey today Tyler Tettleton was names offensive quality control coach, and I can’t wdit this page. Thanks! JakeTheCake1055 (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020

Add 2020 as the Browns third winning season (2002, 2007, and 2020) Nascarfan170 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Although it is certain that the Browns will finish with a winning record at this point, I think it may be better to wait until the regular season is over to add this to the article. I will let another editor review this request to gather their opinion. PlanetJuice ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 17:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020 (2)

Add 2020 to the list of winning seasons 2601:1C2:5280:BB40:8C4E:9C68:8A14:31BA (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 17:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/browns/2020/12/06/cleveland-browns-tennessee-titans-score/3851539001/ 2600:1700:BCF1:8F0:0:0:0:7CB (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Commemorative logo

It appears the 75th anniversary commemorative logo cannot be included in this article, per WP:LOGO#Placement. The infobox it should be included on is the one for the 2021 season, since it is a logo specific to that season. The current wordmark is still the primary wordmark and should remain in the infobox here unless the team announces some kind of change to the overall logo & wordmark branding. The article on Cleveland.com indicates that is not the case. An example is the National Football League article, which has always kept the current NFL shield in the infobox. The NFL used a commemorative 100th season logo in 2019, and that is featured on the 2019 NFL season article. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The 75 logo IS the team's primary logo for 2021, as it is anywhere and everywhere. Will it be the case for 2022 and beyond, probably not, but for '21, it most certainly is the case, and should be in the infobox (nobody ever said that a logo has to be for ever and ever). Vjmlhds (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, see the sources and other examples. It's usage in Browns social media doesn't mean it's the team's primary logo; teams and organizations have commemorative logos all the time and they get heavy usage on their social media outlets. The Browns did it back in 2006 and in 1999; their primary logo (the helmet) didn't change, but they had heavy use of the commemorative logo in media. None of the sources indicate the logo is a replacement of the main logo and all secondary sources like ESPN and Sportslogos.net continue to use the primary helmet logo, including the NFL on their website and at the recent draft. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Some battles are worth fighting - this ain't one of them. I'm done. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Unpopular opinion?: Bills and Broncos are not our rivals.

The Broncos I can almost understand. Obviously the 3 conference championship games we lost to them are a big part of our history. But outside of that four year span of 1986-89, they are just another AFC team like the Jets or Dolphins to us. And shouldn't a real rivalry be less one-sided? Sure, Browns-Ravens is pretty one sided, but there are so many more reasons why they are our rivals compared to the Broncos, and the Browns have a better record versus Baltimore than Denver.

Bills-Browns is such a reach to me. They've met one time in the playoffs and only 22 times since the NFL and AFL merged.

In my opinion, if you're going to include Denver and/or Buffalo, you HAVE to include Houston/Tennessee. They've played 68 times (more than 3 times as many games with Buffalo), with the Browns holding a close 36-32 advantage (compared to our pathetic 6-24 record versus Denver). They were our division rivals in 4 different decades in the AFC central, with lots of memorable games from the "Black 'n Blue" Glanville-Schottenheimer days. There was the 2014 incredible comeback win we had against them. The two game stretch in 2019 and 2020 was interesting. The Titans clobbered the Browns in Cleveland in 2019, followed by the Browns getting revenge in Nashville in 2020 while both teams were deep in the playoff hunt. I might get destroyed by the old heads who remember the Broncos defeats, I wasn't born until '91, but this is how I feel. Wpruitt31 (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Denver is a historical rival and should absolutely remain on this page. The three AFC title games in the 80s are frequently brought up when the teams play each other even to this day. Also, one-sidedness is irrelevant in the scope of whether or not two teams are "rivals." Many well known rivalries are one sided. You bring up Browns-Ravens, and Navy-Notre Dame jumps to my mind.

Buffalo could be removed. All that's there is a poorly sourced short paragraph with half of it describing the Browns' games against the AAFC's Buffalo Bills who are not affiliated with the NFL Bills. You can certainly add Houston/Tennessee for the reasons you stated if it is properly sourced (including receiving non-routine coverage as a "rivalry"), though a large number of meetings between two teams does not constitute a rivalry. Frank Anchor^Talk 04:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from about the Broncos. I guess to me it's that we HAD a rivalry with them, and now there just isn't one. To me it's pretty hard to call someone outside of your division a rival. Wpruitt31 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree re: Denver and it is described perfectly in the article "The Browns had a brief rivalry with the Denver Broncos..." and later "the short-lived rivalry..." Frank Anchor^Talk 16:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Uniform Numbers

Why are the numbers on the uniforms shown block numbers? In real life they are rounded, and this problem has been here since the browns changed their uniform to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Logo again

Just like last year's commemorative logo which was specific to the 2021 season, the Brownie logo being used on the field is just that: a secondary logo. It is not the team's primary logo (at least at this point), which is what the logo parameter is for in the infobox. The team's primary logo is still the orange helmet. -- JonRidinger (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Not trying to give you a hard time or be argumentative, but you just can't discard the elf, especially that he's now front and center at midfield at First Energy Stadium.

Never said the helmet wasn't the main logo, but it isn't the ONLY logo either. The Browns basically have 3 logos now - the helmet, the elf, and the wordmark. The way I have it laid out features all 3. Don't need to remove the elf, as the way it's laid out in the infobox features all 3 logos

Vjmlhds 04:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not discarding it as much as it is realizing how logos work for teams and on Wikipedia. Most teams have a "primary logo" and "secondary logos". The primary logo is what is used most often on official team sites, uniforms, social media, etc. The Browns' primary logo is the orange helmet and the infobox is for the primary logo, not for every logo. And the Browns have made no such announcement that this version of Brownie is a major secondary logo. That's beside the reality that the orange helmet remains the primary logo across multiple sources, including the NFL and the Browns themselves. Teams can, and often do, have multiple secondary logos, and the Browns are no different in that regard. The Cavs are another example of that, with multiple secondary logos, at least one of which you added to that article in the appropriate section.

Don't read too much into the center field logo since A) there hasn't been a center field logo for a few seasons, and B) the Browns have had a new field design in the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and now 2022 seasons. The Browns also routinely bring out historic logos like this, hence the regular usage of the other version of Brownie that appears on many licensed merchandise. As for the 1946 Brownie being used on the field this season, there is very little usage of him in Browns media outside the field announcement. I imagine we will be seeing more of him during the year, but that doesn't mean it suddenly becomes the featured primary logo on the Wikipedia article, any more than the other secondary logos for the Cavs are listed in the infobox on that article. ----JonRidinger (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Further, I have found no instances where an NFL Wikipedia article has a logo, helmet, and wordmark listed in the infobox. All have just logo and wordmark. It's also not unheard of to have a center field logo not be a team's primary logo. Ohio State's 'Block O' at Ohio Stadium and LSU's 'Eye of the Tiger' come to mind. Both are prominently displayed on their respective football fields, but neither is a primary logo, nor are they featured on their team's respective Wikipedia articles. Again, if the Browns make an announcement that they have made the running Brownie elf the primary logo, then by all means, update the article. But for now, no such announcement has been made and its usage on the field does not elevate it to primary logo status, which is what the infobox parameter is for. A case could be made to include the running elf in the 2022 Cleveland Browns article, though, much like how the 75th anniversary logo was used in 2021 Cleveland Browns. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding the line "Named after original coach and co-founder Paul Brown"

Who added that part in the article? Cause I don't rememberseeing that before. The King Gemini (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Al Lerner Statue (9396744749).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Logo part 3

Just like last year for the center field design and the 75th anniversary logo in 2021, this new logo is not the primary logo. The Browns specifically refer to it as the "dawg logo". It's a secondary logo on par with the Brownie elf logos. There has been no announcement that this is the new primary logo and the infobox space is for the primary logo. The orange helmet is still the primary logo and should be labeled as such in the infobox. --17:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) JonRidinger (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024

In the history section, change the following sentence:

   The Browns have only posted three winning seasons and two playoff appearances (2002, 2020) since returning to the NFL.

to the following:

   The Browns have only posted four winning seasons and three playoff appearances (2002, 2020, [[3]]) since returning to the NFL. Crepuscul1 (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Are you asking for a wikilink to the page in the ref tag to be added? Shadow311 (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done: the Cleveland Browns made it to the playoffs this year, and Crepuscul1 wants the data in the history section to reflect that, like it already has in the lead section and infobox. I've also added a citation as a reference. Left guide (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Helmets (current uniform)

Team just changed to white face masks permanantly. 2600:8806:910F:B300:6D14:C012:5969:9CC0 (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)