Talk:Mizzou Arena

Naming Controversy

Unless citations can be given, the information about the naming controversy should probably either be deleted or summarized in a more neutral tone (without going into all the sordid details). 4.243.152.108 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I took out a recent change that stated "Mizzou Arena, formerly known as 'The Paige'". The change in name came right around the opening of the arena. I don't think it was ever really known by that name. If we need to, we can mention it in a paragraph explaining how the arena was funded, but at this point it seems more like trivia. HornColumbia talk 16:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• I don't agree the information should be deleted, though of course it should be cited and summarized in a neutral tone. The removal of the name made national news at the time, and of course the naming rights were key to the facility's construction. I don't believe it's more trivial than the video classrooms, for example. Enjus (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A mention further down in the article might be OK, but the fact is, the name was Mizzou Arena from the first day it was opened. It was NOT formally named Paige. Continuing to reinsert that wording is vandalism. Eodcarl (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

According to USAtoday, it was known as "Paige Sports Arena" the day it was opened. Do you have a reliable source that states the contrary? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The name was never on the building and no event was ever held in the facility under that name. It does not rate mention up front in the article. As I said, a mention further down in the article might be appropriate. Eodcarl (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You would find that both of those statements are hilariously incorrect if you did some basic research or **shocker** read any of the sources I posted on this article or your talk page. Thanks for wasting my time. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Eodcarl's claim of vandalism is off-base, but IMO, Wp:weight should be invoked. As a start, I relocated the section - it is an amusing (or embarrassing, depending on your point of view) aside, that deserves mention, but not the prominence of the first section after the lead. I'm not completely convinced that it belongs in the lead, but this is a close call, and I'll not change it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Normally the "history" section would go right under the lede so it may have added with the intention of later expansion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's completely fine; I just wanted to get the sources back in there so it was inarguable; wherever the placement is I'll take it. Feel free to edit it down too for conciseness. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the detailed description of the academic misconduct is excessive given WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, and the fact that this article is about the arena and not the person. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I read all the sources, and none of them dispute my statement of the fact the proposed initial name was never in use while the facility was actually used. I talk about articles on the article talk page; no one is allowed to use my talk page. It is ridiculous for the initial naming rights situation to be in the lead a decade hence. You are a bully and you have a specific agenda in this case. Eodcarl (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually going by their schedule in 2004-05, the team played three games in the venue to start the season under the PSA name, then two neutral-site games during the renaming process. Thus, inarguably it was under that name when it opened. Nate • (chatter) 04:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is getting ridiculous. Half the article is about a minor anecdote, one not worth mention at all 10 years hence. Eodcarl (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The bullies who guard the "Paige Sports Arena" mention in the intro claim there is consensus on including an anecdote there. I have never seen consensus as defined by Wikipedia. Vote now or forever hold your peace. I vote that the mention further down in the article is enough.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Student section, etc.

The student section is actually the west end and the double-decked end is the east. I corrected these.Wschart (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)