This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of event facilities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This is confusing the band-wagon objections to stadium conversion raised during the 2002 Commonwealth games by athletes and commentators; with a speculative proposal put forward by Manchester City Council to the government, and UK Athletics long before the Commonwealth games, that a bid for the 2005 World Athletics Championship could be developed around Manchester, rather than (as was then being proposed) in a rebuilt Wembley. The Government decided instead that the bid for 2005 should use Picket's Lock as a new national athletics stadium. The bid was successful, but the government then withdrew funding from Picket's Lock a proposal for reasons of long-term financial sustainability, and when the IAAF refused to accept the Don Valley Stadium as an alternative, the games were withdrawn from London and went to Helsinki instead. All of this has only a remote connection with CoMS, which in its current form could never have been converted to long-term athletic use.
The key player here, I believe, was Sport England - who put up the bulk of the money; and who were insistent that the CoMS stadium should either be a temporary structure; or if a permanent stadium, should have an agreed non-athletic long-term tenant. I am sure this is all accessible somewhere; but if no one else can find it, I will go looking. Of course, the adjoining 6,000 capacity Manchester Regional Arena was created as a conversion after the games; I suggest it is appropriate to link to that here.
Stadium conversion After successful athletics events at the Commonwealth Games, conversion into a football venue was criticised by athletics figures such as Jonathan Edwards and Sebastian Coe, as the United Kingdom lacked a large athletics venue. The council was keen to keep the athletics track and proposed to Manchester City F.C. that movable seating be installed after the games. The proposal was rejected by Manchester City F.C. due to excessive cost. The movable seating option would have achieved a capacity of 60,000 but conversion would have cost around £50 million, compared with £22 million to remove the track and achieve a capacity of around 48,000. Stadium architects Arup Sport believed history demonstrated that maintaining a rarely-used athletics track often does not work with football – and cited examples such as the Stadio delle Alpi and the Munich Olympic Stadium, with both Juventus and Bayern Munich moving to new stadiums less than 40 years after inheriting them. Manchester City Council wished to avoid creating a white elephant, so to give the stadium long-term financial viability, extensive work was carried out to convert it from a field and track arena to a football stadium.
Sections of the track were removed and relaid at other athletics venues, and the ground level was lowered to make way for an additional tier of seating. The temporary stand was dismantled, and replaced with a permanent structure of similar design to the existing one at the southern end. This work took nearly a year to complete and added 10,000 seats. Manchester City F.C. moved to the ground in time for the start of the 2003–04 season. The total cost of this conversion was in excess of £40 million, with the track, pitch and seating conversion being funded by the city council at a cost of £22 million; and the installation of bars, restaurants and corporate entertainment areas throughout the stadium being funded by the football club at a cost of £20 million.
The last sentence is not a stadium fact, it is a club fact and surely irrelevant to this page.
This season (2011–2012) also set a number of new club and Premier League footballing records, such as the Manchester club becoming the first ever team to win 11 of its opening 12 games in a Premier League season
This article should be titled Etihad Stadium or Etihad Stadium (Manchester). The current title/intro are POV as they use a non-official name and effectively downgrade its legal name with the "known for sponsorship reasons" preface. I understand that many fans dislike the trend of corporate naming of stadiums, but this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral in tone. We should use whatever the official name is in the title/intro. "City of Manchester Stadium" can be mentioned as the structure's former name, and used as a redirect, but it should not be the title of the article. We have to let personal bias not be a factor here. Personally, I still call the tallest building in Chicago the "Sears Tower," because I grew up calling it that. But its official name now is Willis Tower, and its article (Willis Tower) reflects this - while also acknowledging that it is still commonly called the Sears Tower. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Participants were roughly split, with good (and bad) arguments on either side. While a number of participants have invoked WP:COMMONNAME, we saw little in the way of evidence either way. It does appear that in various cases, articles on stadiums have avoided the sponsored name in favor of something else, which is at least a measure of consistency per WP:AT. Additionally, as was noted, another stadium (Docklands Stadium in Australia) is also officially titled "Etihad Stadium", meaning that the this title would need to be shown to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or else have a disambiguated name. Etihad Stadium (Manchester) was suggested, but there was even less direct support for that option. Overall, after six weeks of discussion, I see no option but to close this RM without a move. Cúchullaint/c 01:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Etihad Stadium in Australia has been named that way since 2009, so it predates the stadium in Manchester by two years. If a search was done in Australia it would always refer to the stadium in Melbourne not Manchester.
Oppose. Sponsored names are temporary, in some cases change quite frequently, introduce confusion due to multiple venues having similar or (in this case) identical names. I'm not sure what the arrangements are in the UK, but in Australia the non-sponsored names are still used by the non-commercial Australian Broadcasting Corporation - "City of Manchester Stadium" gets a mention as recently as a month ago;  - traditional names are also used when there are sponsorship conflicts (e.g. in both the recent Asian Cup and the current Cricket World Cup in Australia) This decision was made by Australian Wikipedians for Australian stadiums several years ago, when we had a few venues flip-flopping between different names and it makes the most sense, since venues are not "renamed" - their operators engage in a short-term financial relationship with a sponsor. -- Chuq(talk) 12:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course there will be the odd mention of the old name, it still makes it a mistake. The official website titles it the Etihad Stadium. If/when sponsership changes, then the page can be moved. It's not been known as the City of Manchester Stadium for a number of years now. The article sources the fact it was named the Etihad in July 2011 and will retain that name for 10 years from then. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I know it is not an entirely reliable procedure; but I googled news references to 'City of Manchester Stadium'. Hits fell into three categories: reports of the 2002 Commonwealth Games, and of historic matches (before the change of name); doubled references when both old and new names are given, with the old name explicitly stated as 'formerly'; and citations from antipodean news outlets (e.g. Fiji), for whom the Melbourne Etihad may locally have higher prominence. I could find no true counter-example of the old name in current use. TomHennell (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Manchester is not in Australia, though; and there is nothing in the Wikipedia article title policy that rules out sponsored names - when these are the common names in use. Allianz Arena and Emirates Stadium are exactly similar cases. Were those latter two clubs to change sponsor deals, the stadium names would no doubt change as well; but as things stand, no other name is in common use; and since (as with the Etihad) these sponsorship arrangements are covered by long-running contracts, any future issues can safely be left till the far future. One-off renames during sponsored tournaments do not affect the case; as those names are by their nature ephemeral, which 'The Etihad' clearly is not. TomHennell (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It certainly isn't in Australia, but I was just sharing the experiences of how the Australian WikiProject has dealt with the issue. The concept of the stadium naming agreement is not really different - the only difference being that Australia has a major news outlet which uses the traditional name. (Note: The reference to the article above isn't anything to do with the Melbourne venue being closer - the ABC does this for all stadiums, all sports - see A-League, AFLcricket.) -- Chuq(talk) 13:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe we use the sponsored name in these cases as there was no other established name to use. Britmax (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Is that not the instance here; now that 'City of Manchester Stadium' has ceased to be an established name in common use? In which case we should adopt whichever name has commonly replaced it; whether that name is sponsored or not is irrelevant to the case. TomHennell (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
All names change will eventually, so eventually all Wikipedia articles for named objects will eventually need to move titles. It is simply a matter of time. Two principles need to be observed; not to change an existing article title until the change is clearly established; and always to change to the most common name in current use. The choice of article title is not restricted by whether a common name is a sponsored name or not; as can be seen in WP:COMMONNAME.TomHennell (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course we use sponsored names for stadiums (not for leagues though). The Emirates Stadium was known as Ashburton Grove prior to sponsorship deal, but the article is called Emirates Stadium. It does not matter if the stadium had the proper name or not, only most common and recognizable names should be used. Now the stadium is most recognizable as Etihad Stadium, not City of Manchester Stadium. TBH, the current name is misleading because the stadium is officialy called Etihad stadium by the club and by Premier League, the reader could be confused by such difference between official name and Wikipedia article. —Corwin of Amber (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Support - per WP:COMMONNAME. To avoid using the name most common used name, makes a precedent to other simmilar articles, like Swedbank Stadion and Color Line Stadion, both having alternate names for UEFA competitions. It is may possible to move an article once in the decade or so. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - As others have pointed out, we don't use sponsored names unless there is no other alternative. The COMS was known as the COMS for several years before Etihad decided to stick their oar in, whereas other stadia like the Emirates Stadium have never had any other name, thus there is no option but to use the sponsored name. – PeeJay 21:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
How do you construe article title policy to imply that Wikipedia doesn't 'use sponsored names unless there is no other alternative'? Or are you rather proposing that Wikipedia 'article title policy' should now be modified to introduce a preference against the use of sponsored names in article titles? Do you have a substantial objection to this move on the basis of 'article title policy' as it currently stands? TomHennell (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Long-standing convention/consensus that we do not use temporary sponsored names for stadiums, except in cases where there is no non-sponsored name (as is the case for the Macron Stadium). Number57 00:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
If Etihad Stadium is only sponsored name then there should be plenty of sources calling this stadium as COMS. Could you please provide some reliable sources stating this stadium is named as City of Manchester Stadium in 2012–2015 years? —Corwin of Amber (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Number 57, stadiums with sponsored names used by teams competing have alternate non-sponsored names, used for UEFA-competitions. Allianz Arena is also known as Fußball Arena München and FIFA World Cup Stadium Munich. I can not see any fundamental differencies between the naming of Etihad Stadium and Allianz Arena. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
PeeJay has answered your question (below) exactly as I would have. Number57 20:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If you don't see the difference, that's because you don't know the history of the Allianz Arena. It has never been officially known by any other name. The names FIFA and UEFA give it are not official in any way, they're just placeholder names due to the fact that those organisations have their own sponsors and referring to the Allianz Arena would introduce a conflict of interests with those other sponsors. The City of Manchester Stadium, however, was known as such from the moment its construction was completed (and likely before) until Etihad joined the party. Its name is "City of Manchester Stadium", but "Etihad Stadium" is temporarily superseding that name. The key word there, of course, is "temporarily". – PeeJay 16:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Not at all PeeJay, 'CoMS' as a name is dead. There are lots of stadiums and sports arenas in Manchester - including a good half dozen in the vicinity of the Etihad - but none of them are called 'City of Manchester Stadium'. That name ceased in official use several years ago; and (which is the relevant point for the purposes of Wikipedia) it has entirely dropped out of common use in the city. Keeping it as an article title simply confuses the casual reader or visitor; as there is no structure in Manchester that corresponds. If you asked a local resident the way to the 'City of Manchester Stadium', they would most likely direct you to the Manchester Regional Arena. The Etihad, we know , will retain its currrent name at least until 2021; if a new name sponsor is then contracted, then they will specify a new 'official' name, but whether the Wikipedia article moves then wil depend on whether the name in common use remains 'The Etihad' or not. It might indeed acquire a new non-sponsored name. But we can be certain that the name will not return to being 'City of Manchester Stadium'; as that was never securely enough established in common use in the first place; in this respect crucially unlike Riverside Stadium or Stadium of Light. TomHennell (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you joking? COMS was the stadium's common name for nine years from when it was opened in 2002 (and probably before). Eastlands was another name used, but COMS was definitely more prevalent, at least from 2002 to 2011. – PeeJay 11:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This is 2015 PeeJay, not 2011. What matters here is common use now, not four years ago. Looking back, we can see that although the CoMS name functioned effectively as a name in common use so long as it remained the official name, once the prop of official designation had been removed its common use within the city stopped dead. As a name, CoMS lacked the crucial element of specific reference that might have given it long-term traction. This is where the case of the Emirates Stadium differs; as there, the stadium's previous name - Ashburton Grove - continues to circulate amongst Arsenal supporters as an alternative designation. See http://www.ashburtongrove.co.uk/ . The CoMS name, by contrast, just disappeared - other than in the special case of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation who are artificially constrained by their rules on sponsorship. 'Philips Park Stadium' or 'Medlock Vale Stadium' might have fared better as alternatively circulating names for the Etihad had one of them been adopted in the first place; but that is now water under the bridge. TomHennell (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the list Number 57. I don't know all these stadiums; but for those that I do, the non-sponsor name is indeed established currently in common use - and hence the appropriate Wikipedia article title according to WP:COMMONNAME, which is not the case here. These names therefore do not demonstrate any general consensus against sponsored names. What I also note from your list is that none of the non-sponsor names you list is, on the face of it, currently the property of a third party; wheras the CoMS name is now owned by the City Council, who may well have their own future intentions for it. After the 2002 Commonwealth Games, Manchester City Football Club were granted the right to continue using the name 'City of Manchester Stadium' by the City Council as part of the agreed long-term lease. But that grant was withdrawn when the Etihad sponsorship deal was made. So MCFC currently have no rights in respect of the CoMS name; and it is highly unlikely that the City Council would ever agree to a new grant; which would be wholly incompatible with the City's policy in not allowing its name to be exploited by non-civic enterprises. TomHennell (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
These names therefore do not demonstrate any general consensus against sponsored names I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I think they show quite clearly that there is a consensus against using the sponsored names where an alternative is available, even though (as has been pointed out directly below), some of the sponsored names are indeed in common usage, yet we still don't use them. Number57 12:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
These article titles are fully in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME as the non-sponsored names all conform to a name in common use. The fact that a sponsored name may also be in common use doesn't demonstrate a counter-instance; as WP:COMMONNAME specifically allows that a less commonly used name may be better as an article title than a more common name - e.g where the more common name is also current for another similar subject (as is not unusual with sponsored names). Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. But there is the world of difference between a 'less commonly used name' in reliable sources - as perhaps for some of the twenty stadiums you quote; and 'never commonly used name' in reliable sources - as appears to be the case for 'City of Manchester Stadium'. Or maybe you could link to an equivalent number of current reliable sources where the CoMS name is still used? TomHennell (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose No need to use sponsor name. Even the Amex Stadium redirects to Falmer Stadium to avoid use of sponsor name, even though basically everyone calls it the Amex. Also, the stadium has significance in times where the Eithad Stadium was not used (Olympics, before they sponsored it). Joseph2302 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
See WP:COMMONNAME. History should be described in the article itself, but the article title should be the most frequently used name at present time, not 10 years ago. —Corwin of Amber (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment In practice, I've not found WP:COMMONNAME to be a very useful policy in the area of stadium pages. It's much more useful to reach a regional consensus. As has been mentioned above, Australian Wikipedians have effectively reached a consensus to use non-sponsored names for article titles, even when sponsored names are an obvious better fit under the WP:COMMONNAME policy (and we have – rightly or wrongly – contrived uncommon names for some of our newer stadiums, such as Melbourne Rectangular Stadium or Melbourne Park Multi Purpose Venue, simply to carry forward that consensus); but American Wikipedians widely use sponsored names for stadium articles. This is an area where English sports Wikipedians need to agree on something as a community, and then apply it uniformly across the country – otherwise, this same argument will be had over and over again whenever an old venue gets a sponsor. That having been said, it seems clear to me that in direct contradiction with what many editors have claimed here, there are several British sports stadiums (both in soccer and other sports) which currently have sponsored article titles when another common alternative exists (SWALEC Stadium is a very good example of one where the sponsored name has replaced the long-time alternative, Sophia Gardens) – and therefore based on what appears to be the prevailing consensus I'd be prepared to put my partial support behind the proposal to move to Etihad Stadium (Manchester). Aspirex (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
So far, I've seen no convincing policy based rationale of why it should stay under the current incorrect name. All that's been said is that the football fans here don't do move articles to the name of stadia sponsers, despite plenty of evidence contradicting them. I'm baffled how you can argue against a) the website's own official naming of the stadium, b) the fact this current name hasn't been used for more than 4 years, c) it's far from a temporary position, as it's going to last until 2021 and d) WP:COMMONNAME. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:Consensus is a Wikipedia policy, and as pointed out above, there is a long-standing consensus that sponsored names should not be used. Number57 20:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is a process of coming to agreement, not a policy; and as WP:Consensus empahsises, the outcome of this process may be expected to change if agreement is sought in different contexts. So the outcome consensus agreed in one case in no way constrains the process of coming to agreement in another case with some similar characteristics, (nor indeed in respect of a new agreement on the same case at a different time and context). TomHennell (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
No, WP:Consensus is a policy. You are of course correct that this may change, but I was responding to the claim that there is no policy-based rationale for keeping this article at its current title, when in fact there is rather a strong one. Given the consensus from previous debates, we could have easily created a formal naming convention for football grounds that does not necessarily reflect WP:COMMONNAME (for example Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) is often in direct contravention of COMMONNAME, but it is a formalised naming policy and so overrides it), but it was never deemed necessary as the debates always ended the same way. Number57 12:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Seeking agreement by consensus is Wikipedia policy; but the outcome of that consensus does not become Wikipedia policy. Hence we cannot appeal to a previous individual exercise in consensus as a binding precedent; as we can and do for formally defined Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The distinction between consensus agreements and 'policies or guidelines' is apparent here; from WP:ConsensusConsensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. This is directly applicable here. WP:COMMONNAME is Wikipedia policy. So no previous censensus in the respect of some other stadium name can constrain the process of consensus agreement in the case of the Etihad; if this proposed article title move can be shown to accord with WP:COMMONNAME. TomHennell (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You've missed the point by some way – as I said, we have had several discussions about this in the past, all of which have resulted in us using the non-sponsored name, and this could have been converted into a naming guideline that is in contravention to WP:COMMONNAME (as many naming guidelines are). You are correct that previous consensus in individual discussions cannot "constrain the process", but it is a strong indicator of what general consensus is on a certain matter (which is a reason previous AfDs or RMs on similar topics are often cited during discussions). Number57 13:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You have lost me entirely Number 57; I cannot find where Wikipedia defines the Naming Guidelines you refer to. Can you point me to the relevant page? As I understnd it Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are one and the same, and the only policy here is WP:COMMONNAME. The point is quite simple. Wikipedia policies, such as WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Consensus, represent and define 'community consensus on a wider scale'. Everything in a Wikipedia policy and guideline has been reached by 'community consensus'; nothing counts as 'community consensus' that is not stated in a Wikipedia policy and guideline. Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. A number of posters in this discussion have claimed there is an 'established consensus' against the use of sponsored names for stadiums; but as the above makes clear, the only form of 'established consensus' that Wikipedia recognises is that formalised in Wikipediea policies and guidelines. All other consensus agreements are one-off, and lack the 'stability and consistency' of explicit policies and guidelines. TomHennell (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks Number 57. I see that that particular Wikipedia guideline page is just one of a whole string of special case guidelines concerning article names, arising by community consensus. The full list is at 'Category:Wikipedia naming conventions'. You will see that there is no entry on the list for naming sports stadiums; though there are entries for sports teams Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), and sports people Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople). If there had been - as some have asserted - an established Wikipedia convention that sponsor names are not to be used as article titles for sports stadiums (or indeed teams), then that convention would been stated in one of the entries on that list. Since there is no such entry, we can confidently assert that there is no such convention. TomHennell (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know there is no such convention. The point I have repeatedly tried to make (I hope you get it this time?) is that given the repeated previous consensuses on this issue, it wouldn't have been too difficult to get the required consensus to create one for stadium names. It was just never done as every RM had the same result, so I guess no-one felt the need to. Number57 08:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe number 57; maybe not. The current discussion might indicate otherwise. But we can't base decisions on might-have-beens. All we know for certain, is that no general consensus agreement has been made within Wikipedia on stadium names; or indeed formulating a general preference against sponsored names in any specific context. On that we are both agreed. My point follows from this; that our current exercise is starting with a clean sheet. Individual contributors will be bringing their own experience of previous one-off consensus exercises, but nothing of the outcome of those prevous exercises carries over into this exercise. TomHennell (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose WP don't uses sponsor names and what happens when the name changes? The article has to be moved again, so let's leave it like it is. Kante4 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment From 2008 to 2014, Mercedes-Benz Arena was an article about a stadium in Stuttgart. In 2014, it was moved to Mercedes-Benz Arena (Stuttgart) and Mercedes-Benz Arena became a disambiguation page. The article on Shanghai Arena was moved to Mercedes-Benz Arena (Shanghai) in 2011. This is an example of two stadiums having the same sponsor name in different locations like Manchester and Melbourne versions that have been mentioned earlier in this discussion. EddieV2003 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Reluctantly support move to Etihad Stadium (Manchester) per COMMONNAME. "City of Manchester Stadium" is no longer the common name even in unofficial usage, and the current sponsor name will be in place through at least 2021. The argument that Wikipedia doesn't use sponsors falls flat in light of the aforementioned Mercedes-Benz Arena thing. In addition, Wikipedia does not have separate policies for American, English, and Australian venues, so one consistent policy should theoretically be applied. As a result, because the sponsor name is the common name, the only way this article should not be located at "Etihad Stadium (Manchester)" is if sponsor names were not to be used in article titles for sporting venues, which is not currently the case. ONR(talk) 18:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Old Naval Rooftops: The Mercedes-Benz Arena example is not representative of the situation – there will always be examples of articles that have slipped through the net, and this is one of them. In contrast, see my list of English grounds above that are named in accordance with the no sponsored names consensus (and there are many more). If many WP:FOOTY editors had been aware of this example, it would have probably been changed long ago. Number57 20:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Support - most of the "oppose" arguments I'm seeing above are basically along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, specifically on the point that we should not use sponsors' names for stadiums. In a way I agree, I don't like it either - it is not really the place of Wikipedia to provide free advertising for companies. Like Old Naval Rooftops, my support is reluctant. But whatever our personal preferences, the policies at WP:AT are crystal clear on this issue. We must use the WP:COMMONNAME, not some other name dictated by opinions and WikiProject members. And the common name in this instance, in almost all recent reliable sources, is clearly "Etihad Stadium". Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, there are occasions on Wikipedia in which we do not use common names, instead deferring to some other naming convention. In the case of football stadiums, the informal convention is that we do not use sponsored names. The whole issue of COMMONNAME is also difficult to ascertain when it comes to this kind of situation, as the club will always use the sponsored name (as it's probably in the contract), and most media outlets do as well (whether for contractual reasons, or just trying to stay on the right side of clubs) - so it's not really possible to get a true reflection of what the actual common name is... Number57 00:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there may be such occasions when other naming conventions are deferred to, but such conventions, particularly when formulated by individual WikiProjects, must always by their nature be informal. In many cases they are highly useful for providing a suggested name when there is doubt, and participants may of course refer to the conventions in a move request. But ultimately the decision comes down to policy, not topic-specific naming conventions. And WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. Incidentally, COMMONNAME does not mean what is it commonly called by the masses, or people in the pub, it means what is it called by reliable sources. In that regard, I don't think it is as difficult to determine as you say. The media will actually probably form the bulk of reliable sources when it comes to a football stadium (although of course there will be books on the topic and maybe the odd scholarly article as well), so whether or not they are using the Etihad name for "contractual" reasons (I doubt it personally, but who knows) doesn't really matter. If they're reliable sources and they use that name, then that fulfils COMMONNAME. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - Sponsors come and go, as soon as the sheikhs get bored it will be called something else, same as JJB Stadium is now called DW Stadium (even though it should really be called Wigan Athletic Stadium, as it is according to UEFA). Same as the Lech Poznań stadium is almost never called Inea Stadium, only used when sponsorship agreements force them to (i.e. on TV or in adverts). The Etihad name is temporary, and until there is reason to believe that it won't be commonly referred to the City of Manchester Stadium (or an abreviation/variation) or that there is significant difference between the two, then there is no reason to move the article, a redirect is sufficient Abcmaxx (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't but it can factor it in. City fans won't ever stop calling it the "City stadium", and it is likely that Etihad stadium will become something else in the future, meaning the common name won't change but the sponsored name will. Also WP:PROMOTION, the article is meant to be about the stadium not promoting the company/person that happens to have enough money to re-name stuff as they please.Abcmaxx (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
'City Stadium'? There is one of those in Green Bay, and another in Cardiff. But thre has never (to my knowledge) beeen a City Stadium in Manchester. Certainly, I have never heard that name used for the Etihad. Can you substantiate the name 'City Stadium' from one or more reliable sources? Can you subtantiate any name other than the Etihad from current reliable sources? TomHennell (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. As has already been argued, long-standing convention is to avoid using temporary sponsored names for stadiums, like we also do for leagues. Two featured articles where this has long been the case are Valley Parade and Priestfield Stadium. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose (again). Invalid rationale, no valid arguments in favour of the move. Please all read WP:AT and/or the explanation at WP:official names. Andrewa (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please expand on this Andrewa. The proposed name change is claimed as being supported through application of the principles in WP:COMMONNAME. Whereas no one opposing the name change has yet produced any evidence to support any name other than Etihad Stadium in current reliable sources. It has been claimed, by opponents of the change, that a naming convention has been applied in the past in Wikipedia against the use of sponsored names for stadiums, even when these are common names; but again, no such convention is recorded in 'Category:Wikipedia naming conventions'. TomHennell (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree that some of the oppose arguments are not valid either! But the onus of proof is on those supporting the move. The rationale reads The stadium is officially called Etihad Stadium. The stadium was renamed the Etihad Stadium by the club in July 2011, so it's more than 3 years, more than enough to rename the article. I guess the argument is that as the official name was changed years ago, the new name should be in common use by now. But that's exactly what Wikipedia does not support. We base our article titles on what is used, not opinions as to what should be used. Andrewa (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Andrewa; but it is nit-picking to say that the headline rationale for the change assumes, without explicitly saying so, that 'The Etihad' is now both the official name, and the common name in use as per WP:COMMONNAME. Plenty of other contributors to this discussion have remedied that deficiency. Should we go through the whole thing again from the beginning with a reworded headline? I fully agree that article titles should be based "on what is used, not opinions as to what should be used"; that is indeed the whole case for change. So far as I can see, all the arguments opposing change are based on the proposition that sponsor names should not be used, even accepting that only the sponsor name is now found in reliable sources. TomHennell (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Disagree that Plenty of other contributors to this discussion have remedied that deficiency. Glad that you now at least recognise the deficiency.
I did another quick scan of the support votes above, and it was a waste if time as not one offers any evidence of the common use of the official name. Not one seems to even recognise that such evidence is necessary in a discussion of this sort. Instead they just criticise the arguments of the opponents, sometimes validly, sometimes not. What a waste of time. No case has been made. It is as simple as that.
If there is good evidence of the common use of this name, then the article should be moved. If not, it should not be moved.
We are still waiting for this evidence. There are plenty of opinions above that it is the common name, none of them substantiated. Lots of speculation. No relevant facts. It is not nit-picking to point out this uncorrected deficiency in the move rationale, rather it is the key to resolving this matter, and I request that you withdraw this mild personal attack. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You maybe missed my posting above: "I know it is not an entirely reliable procedure; but I googled news references to 'City of Manchester Stadium'. Hits fell into three categories: reports of the 2002 Commonwealth Games, and of historic matches (before the change of name); doubled references when both old and new names are given, with the old name explicitly stated as 'formerly'; and citations from antipodean news outlets (e.g. Fiji), for whom the Melbourne Etihad may locally have higher prominence. I could find no true counter-example of the old name in current use. TomHennell (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)" All current reliable references were to 'Eithad Stadium', none to 'City of Manchester Stadium'; see http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31922160TomHennell (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't even look for it, as I said above I looked at the votes, this  was a reply to a reply, and while it's a step in the right direction, it's still lacking in links and a quick google  gave me the opposite result, so it's hard to tell what this evidence really is, and so heavily qualified that it's hard to tell what it's supposed to prove. But had this attempt at evidence been offered earlier in the discussion it would have helped a lot, it's definitely a step in the right direction. Andrewa (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Care to comment on the vote below? It seems completely irrelevant. But then, they have been set a terrible example in the discussion above. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Andrewa: I have one question for you. Is "City of Manchester Stadium" the commonly used name for this in reliable sources, or is "Etihad Stadium" the commonly used name in reliable sources? If it's the latter (as I believe to be the case), then there is no other policy based reason stated here in any of the oppose votes, that can count against the move. So no, those support votes which address policy are not "terrible", in fact they are almost irrefutable. — Amakuru (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Support - Etihad is owned by Abu Dhabi government, and the chairman of its Board is Hamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is a member of Al Nahyan family (the ruling family of UAE), a family which City President and deputy Prime Minister of UAE, Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan part of, so it's more than clear that the deal would be extended. And we already have more than enough moves of sponsored stadiums, including the Emirates Stadium whose original name (Ashburton Grove) is known to by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sybest 7 7 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: This all appears to be irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It's only relevant if the status of the people involved guarantees that naming stadiums will remain part of the airline's marketing strategy. How would that work? Britmax (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: The general standards that usually apply on WP holds that if a ground has had a non-sponsored name in its past that is the one that should be used for the article name. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you link please, to where the 'general standards' to which you refer are set down as Wikipedia policy. I cannot find such a principle within 'Category:Wikipedia naming conventions' (Category:Wikipedia naming conventions); is it recorded somewhere else? TomHennell (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I've refactored TomHennell's comment above to link to :Category:Wikipedia naming conventions; the old wikicode was causing this talk page to be included in that category, which is clearly incorrect and not what TomHennell intended. —me_and 09:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose - sponsors come and go but the name "City of Manchester Stadium" will always remain and is the common name if one is to have a wider outlook over an extended time frame. Mbcap (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: For the reasons given by others, namely the long standing practice of not using sponsorship names for English football stadia. --Sussexonian (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.