Jump to content

Talk:Commonwealth Stadium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 3 May 2017

[edit]
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 move. Consensus is against the move at this point, as the Kentucky stadium's name change is recent. Supporters may wish to revisit in the future. Cúchullain t/c 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton) → Commonwealth Stadium – Now that Commonwealth Stadium (Kentucky) has been renamed, I would like to propose that Edmonton is the primary topic of Commonwealth Stadium. I also propose that Commonwealth Stadium be deleted as per WP:2DABS. 117Avenue (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed for now. With the name change at Kentucky so recent, I think, at the very least, it's too soon given the announcement happened 2 days ago. A lot of secondary sources still have that stadium listed as Commonwealth Stadium (its name for 44 years) and will for some time. My recommendation is to wait a year. Eventually, I think this stadium could be the Primary Topic, but not yet. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that it takes time for people to become accustomed to a new name on a stadium, but this move will not erase Commonwealth Stadium (Kentucky)'s history or significance. The name change on Commonwealth Stadium (Kentucky) was immediate, and all documentation moving forward will have the new name. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC looks for long-term significance, the Edmonton stadium was named after the Commonwealth games that were held there, and with potential bids for future Commonwealth Games I don't expect the name to change any time soon, unlike Kentucky which now allows corporate sponsership. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY also looks at traffic statistics, Edmonton had 14,632 views in the last 90 days, Kentucky only had 4,256; and with 181 people ending up on a diambiguation page that only lists 2 items in the last 90 days, I think that it is immportant for us to find a primary usage. 117Avenue (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of the naming reasons, though that's not really the issue here, nor is speculation as to whether Edmonton would eventually get a corporate sponsor. It's also not about people being "accustomed" to the new name; it's about whether secondary sources start using the new name at Kentucky in such a manner that "Commonwealth Stadium" clearly means Edmonton and not Kentucky. Again, I don't think it's a matter of if, but when. Perhaps a year is too long, but 2 days after the name change seems too soon to suddenly shift the primary topic. Page views stats are a good start, but not a tell-all, especially at this time of year when college football isn't in the news much and hasn't been since January. I looked at pageview stats from September 1–December 31, 2016 (during college football season) and the stats were much closer: 21,675 for Edmonton and 14,084 for Kentucky, though 0 edits for Kentucky and 0 unique editors vs. 25 edits and 14 unique editors for Edmonton. Again, I think waiting at least a few weeks like ONR suggests is a better option. No need to rush. The fact the disambiguation page isn't getting a lot of use seems to mean readers know what they're looking for. Yes, eventually it should be moved and then the hatnote suggestion below should be applied. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By documentation, I meant secondary sources included. Canadian football runs from June to November, so Edmonton didn't have any events in the last 90 days either. If we look at the past year it is 69,721 vs. 24,943. 117Avenue (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's still not significant enough to anoint one Primary Topic in my opinion, i.e. not "more likely than all the other topics combined". In past experiences determining Primary Topic, the differences between the two subjects has been much larger. For instance, when I requested FirstEnergy Stadium be moved to the primary topic, it was getting 10 times the traffic of the other stadiums with the name combined, hardly surprising for an NFL stadium with the name vs. a minor league baseball stadium and a college soccer stadium. Further, it also wasn't immediately made Primary Topic when the name first changed. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but WP:PRIMARYUSAGE states that "a topic is primary for a term, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." And WP:2DABS states that if there is a primary topic, a disambiguation page is not needed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks that logo looks out of place a smidge? It's not like BC Place has a Bell Pitch logo or whatever. --WestJet (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a unique situation. Normally arenas are branded and have a logo, and normally arenas host multiple sports or teams. As such, the infobox has a place for the arena logo, and editors like to have logos at the top of the infobox. However, the official name of this arena is simply Commonwealth Stadium, and it does not have a logo; but, the Eskimos use it almost exclusively, and during it's use it is called "The Brick Field at Commonwealth Stadium", and has a logo. So the question remains, is the "The Brick Field at Commonwealth Stadium" logo a de facto logo and should be up top, or is "The Brick Field at Commonwealth Stadium" a minor name, and the logo should be lower down, perhaps in Canadian football? While I feel that "The Brick Field at Commonwealth Stadium" is a minor name, and have never called it that IRL, I do think that the logo is the de facto logo of Commonwealth Stadium, and should remain on top. What do other editors think? 117Avenue (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no strong views on the matter. It looked a but cheesy to me but this is the age we're in, and as 117Avenue states, while they're not the sole attraction there, they are the primary one. Is there a non-Brick generic logo that could be there, with the Brick logo perhaps featured further down in Esks section (if the fair use rules allow that)? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton). 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:

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) 07:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 January 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton) → Commonwealth Stadium – Commonwealth Stadium (Kentucky) has been known as Kroger Field for over three years now, and could be adequately disambiguated with a hatnote. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

I think that at this point we probably need a gallery for the stadium's image. I will add one. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 21:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:IG as image galleries generally aren't appropriate for articles like this. Some important points: First, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons." This article is long enough that a sufficient number of images can be placed in the various sections without the need for a gallery. There is already a link to the connected Commons page.
Second, "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." Of the images in the gallery, most are just different angles of the stadium or taken at different times, not various examples of features that can't be shown any other way like you would for examples of a particular painting style or architectural era. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_Stadium&oldid=1206761545"