Yes in the Ted era it picked out in a fans competition I remember them getting quite excited about it.

The real culprit here is Maurice Lindsay. He decreed that all clubs must have stupid names (although he probably didn't phrase it quite like that). Initially, St Helens and Wakefield both refused, on the basis that they already had an obvious nickname. To their credit St Helens stuck to their guns, but somewhere along the line Wakefield were persuaded to make the change. I wonder what threat he came up with?

Probably that Super League would make our lives a misery whilst ever we are members, Cube

My recollection is that if we wanted to go up, we had to have it. As it was tied in with a more exciting future, there wasn't the problem. As time went on, however, it became clumsy.

Some have worked. Rhinos and Bulls both seem to have gelled, along with Warrington Wolves and Cas Tigers. Not so sure about Warriors and Vikings.

Hull FC were right to go back to it, as that was their name before the Sharks. It might not be needed, because of KR and City, but then again, we don't strictly need the Trinity any more.

ya think ?

In terms of identifying the city in which we play, maybe not.
But Wakefield on its own is neither the traditional name we're supposed to be returning to, nor a means to identify the club.
It has to be Wakefield Trinity, or it may as well be Calder, Wildcats or anything, doesn't really matter its busted without it.

The crests and names are the biggest identity a club can have, I always liked Saints emblem with the stick man with a ball tucked under his arm but apparently they had to give this up due to copyright issues and if they wanted to carry on using it, it would have cost a lot of money.

Wrong! Of course we do! Wakefield TRINITY is known the world over, Wakefield simply isn't. Trinity is our heritage, our identity, we MUST keep it!

You have to move with the times so can't keep old looking badges forever, nostalgic reasons from elderly fans won't really outweigh create a modern brand that appeals to new fans and sponsors. (The exact same applies to new grounds).

As for the names, it works just fine for American sports and you see it happening in cricket now. It's 2018 not 1968.

Part of it is each to own with the clubs though. As a fan if you say you're a Wakey fan or going to the Wakey game at the weekend, people around will know you're referring to RL. If you say you're a Leeds fan or going to a Leeds game to somebody then they can and do assume you mean Leeds United so having the Rhinos name to use does help a lot to give you your own separate identity rather than being Leeds RL or just Leeds. Leeds has a basketball team too (Leeds Force) and will have a team in the city based T20 starting in 2020 which will be Leeds ?????.

Would suggest we hold on to that forever but consider the possibility of losing the Wakefield tag.

You comment, regarding cricket, makes absolute sense as they have a number of different formats of the game.
Where it doesn't stack up, is when you bring football into the equation.
Can you imagine if the biggest world sport started changing the names of Leeds United or Real Madrid etc, the fans just wouldn't go for it.
You can also argue that "The Game" should move with the times.
However, as with football, RL has around 150 years of proud history and some of the gimmicks just dont sit well.
of course, some of the new names have worked well, Rhinos, Warriors, Wolves and of course The Bulls but, Blue Sox, Sharks, City Reds (I know this has changed) and Wildcats just didn't work and its far better to recognise this that persist with something that actually alienates the fans of the game.
You stick with Rhino's and we'll stick with Trinity

Leeds have never been anything else but Leeds, so adding Rhinos ain't much of a change and helps to differentiate between other sporting clubs in the city, if they like it, leave em to it, although before the Rhino's tag if I was talking to someone who wasn't necessarily a fan, I'd refer to them as Leeds RL.
Bradford have lost half their traditional name, a few work colleagues I've known for 30 years are Bradford fans, and still to this day we talk about Northern, never the Bulls.
If I'm honest, they're all 5h1te, they're as 5h1te as changing Leeds UTD to Leeds Galaxy, it just wouldn't happen.
These decisions are made by marketing d1cks who have little interest in history and tradition.
Its true, we all have to move with the times both on and off the field, but tampering with an identity built on over so many years is pretty stupid imo.
If we want a "Wildcats" tag to capture the engagement of the kids either as future fans or for the scholarships and younger teams, I can see the value in that, but for the games top tear clubs, history and tradition dictate identity, not some dingbat shuffling paper and dreaming up daft 4rsed marketing plans.

That was actually the point I was making, in response to the point about Hull not needing the FC tag.

Sorry Slug, I thought you were saying neither we nor Hull need to differentiate ourselves with a name from other clubs in our citys, thus both Trinity and FC are redundant.

I should have quoted the earlier post.

I live in South East Asia; there are loads of Brits and Aussies here; relatively few of the Brits are into RL but most of the Aussies are into what they call 'footy' (RL).
Most Brits I know have heard of Wakefield Trinity, even if they don't know anything else about RL or the club. Only the RL fans would recognise the Wildcats moniker. Of the Aussies, a few have heard of Wakefield Trinity but even the diehard fans have never heard of the Wildcats.