Talk:St James' Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Opening comment[edit]

Aren't some seats on the St. James' Park about 1/2 a mile from the centre spot, I heard it on Soccer AM some while ago.

"It is the only stadium in the FA Premier League to not have a scoreboard of any kind."

Can anyone verify if this is actually true? 16:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


  • A move over redirect is required to fix a bold but contested move done outside of the RM process, See Talk:St James' Park, Newcastle. — MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I had been meaning to put an edit summary in but i pressed move too early. I thought it was too similar to one of the others so it was to help distinguish it more. I am going to move this comment to the talk page. In fact there is a park in Bristol with the same name so it is to distinguish. Simply south not SS, sorry 16:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I wish you had not done this. A move is not justified on this basis, the Bristol park has no article, and even if it did, this article would be the primary topic. The article title is unique due to the apostrophe locations, and thus per the naming policies, no addition of Newcastle is required, in the same way that Exeter and London are not added to the other similarly named articles. I will request an administrator fix this contested move as it needs a revert over a redirect now, and if you still think it is ambiguous and needs moving, you must follow the proper procedure and do it properly as a requested moveMickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think this needs to be moved back; if an article is to be created for the park in Bristol, we would need to verify the punctuation, and there's be no reason not to have that at St. James' Park (Bristol) or similar, as this would be the primary usage of the term IMO.– Toon(talk) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have moved the three confusingly similar St. James's Park -type names to clearly disambiguated names which are pointed to from St. James's Park (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • To me St. James's Park in London is the primary meaning. Stray apostrophes and fullstops, and a genitive -s on a name that already ends in -s, are to many people not a significant difference. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • St James' Park overwhelmingly has incoming links from articles discussing this football ground. The previous situation, in which the disambigutation link was used, is more than adequate. The move should be reversed. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone decided to change this into an WP:RM. The original move is what should have gone through RM, I was merely requesting a reversion to the original state, which required admin intervention. Now it seems to have got rather sillier now. The situation is still the same, the article needs to be moved back to St James' Park, as this was and still is the only article with that name. A dab page is not required if the only directly competing name is the Bristol park, as that is not even a whole article, and even if it was, the stadium is clearly the primary use. And a dab page for all similar entries is fine, but that must be located at xyz (disambiguation), the primary articles can still all reside at their original titles without (Newcastle), (Exeter), or (London), because they have no directly competing titles. This is all explained in the disambiguation guideline. This is not how you deal with subtle name variations. MickMacNee (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC):To further explain, the top comment on this list, attributed to me by someone at 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC), was not made by me here. My first comment on this page was in response to the post by Simply South. MickMacNee (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just put it to WP:RM in order to get admin attention, as the guidelines suggested that was what we needed to do. Pretty Green (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
But St James' Park in Bristol doesn't even have an article. If you look at this pragmatically, you'll see that the overwhelming majority, if not all, of the links coming to St James' Park are for the football ground. The previous system had worked for five years and there was no reason to change it. Pretty Green (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There's also St James Park (Exeter) (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Not forgetting St. James's Park tube station & St James Park railway station (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
These are all, with the exception of the Bristol park, spelt differently.--Pretty Green (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note. With the following sources:

I have expanded the name section.

Even with the new information about whether SJP has an apostrophe or an extra s, the only way the 'dab page for similar names' idea makes any sense, is if you make every similar name without a target:

all point to the 'home dab page', St James Park, with outgoing links to the articles:

I still think this is pretty poor solution, when there are no direct conflicts between the actual article names used. I frankly don't see how it is any better than when the articles had dab hats to cater for people who either mispelled links or mis-spelled in the search box. The only advantage to adding (, Newcastle) to the title is for pre-emptive assistance to user navigation in the search box, so in that case, a redirect variation for London, Newcastle, Exeter needs to be created for all similar names that a user might type into the search box, namely:

  • St James Park
  • St. James Park
  • St James' Park
  • St. James' Park
  • St James's Park
  • St. James's Park
  • Saint James Park
  • Saint James' Park
  • Saint James's Park

meaning that:

should all redirect to St James' Park, Newcastle as the current name

I will do that now as it seems a good idea anyway, whether this article stays with " ,Newcastle" added to the title or not.

The disambiguators with (brackets) are against policy, as geographic disambiguation is done by commas to the next highest administrative sub-division, so these should be deleted.

P.S. None of this even addresses what to do with the potential mis-spellings of

MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In 1958 3 supporters attempted to bury a tunnel under St James' Park so that they could play on the pitch at night. 5 days after they started work on the tunnel it collapsed, killing 2 of the men.[edit]

What???? This does bring a smile to my face. Were they miners? Did they have any qualifications in mining or civil engineering? Did they calculate ground bearing pressures & stresses in temporary supports? Were they just a bunch of dim-wits? Were they alcoholics? Didn't they realise it would be easier and a million times safer to scale walls for a night-time game rather than tunnel (try a ladder)? Did they plan for deterioration of air quality and oxygen percentage as the tunnel grew? Did they expect their tunnel breakthrough to be easily concealable every morning with a false floor and spare turf under a professional playing surface? Sorry, sounds like rubbish to me, but I'd love to see contemporary newspaper reports - surely there exist microfilm copies in Newcastle central library of the relevant Chronicle / Journal / Pink entry (was the Pink around in '58?)? Is it apocryphal? Local Legend?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkkexile (talkcontribs) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The St. James' Park steps, outside the main stand on Barrack Road, where Kevin Keegan addressed fans over the controversial sale of star player Andy Cole in January 1995 to Manchester United, and wher[edit]

Doesn't the picture show the exterior of the 1999/2000 extension? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkkexile (talkcontribs) 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Name[edit]

All this discussion about apostrophes is fascinating. I am however amazed that (unless I've simply missed it) there's no coverage about which St. James the Street - and thus park - is named after. Can anyone put aside their punctuation guides for a minute or two and enlighten us? -- (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you? Unless someone knows/finds the time to source some facts, it'll stay as-is, I'm afraid. – Toon 18:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Where an existing stadium is temporarily renamed for sponsorship reasons, precedent has it that we don't move the article. Please see e.g. Darlington Arena, Odsal Stadium, Abbey Stadium, etc. WP:COMMONNAME would call this ground St James' Park. The new sponsorship deal should be highlighted in the lead, and now is, but it only lasts until the end of the season, so hardly justifies moving a page from the name the stadium has been known by for may decades. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I've move-protected it just in case some silliness breaks out. Black Kite 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Add its proper name for factual reasons

its now @ St James' Park. Not St James' park. Doesnt matter if it has been know as this for years its name is now @ St James' Park. Or is Wikipedia not known for factual accuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't be moved of course, but I think the "official" name should be more prominent in the lead. Ie., "St James' Park, offically titled @ St James' Park, is an all-seater stadium..." U-Mos (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this, although with a slight rephrasing, such that the lead sentence reads "St James' Park, currently called the @ St James' Park Stadium, is an all-seater stadium...". I don't believe this gives any "undue" weight to the name, as has been suggested in some edit summaries. This is the current name of the stadium, and should rightly be mentioned in the opening. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It does not require more prominence than it already has. All there has been is an announcement that this is the new (temporary) 'name' until the end of the season, but in actual fact, nobody is currently using it as the name, not on the stadium, not in press reports (not about the name), not even the club website itself. Not to mention it is not even a permanent arrangement so it is not the same as other stadium articles with sponsor names, it is instead a temporary promo exercise for future bidders, and was only announced by the club to assuage the anger at their previous botched announcement of a rename which suggested the name SJP was being dropped altogether. Nobody arriving at this article and not seeing this 'name' in the first line is not going to be confused in the slightest as to whether they have the right article. Putting it in the lede sentence quite obviously gives undue weight to what is ultimately, a piece of irrelevance. It would be an example of the tail wagging the dog. If and when this 'name' actually starts appearing on the stadium, or in third party reports not about the actual name, then you might have case. As of now, you really don't. MickMacNee (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. The very true arguments of usage are the reason the article should not be moved, but nevertheless I think the official name should be mentioned as suggested above. U-Mos (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Give me an actual reason then, what actual benefit to the reader does moving it from the bottom of the lede to the first line bring, given the fact it isn't being used as a name anywhere yet except the press release that announced it? MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The benefit of informing them of the official (albeit temporary) name, which in my opinion should be clarified asap in the article text. As I said, it being used nowhere except the press release is the reason the page has not and should not be moved, nothing else. Plus it would take up less room than the rather tagged-on sentence currently sitting in the lead. Perhaps "why" should not be the question here, but rather "why not"? U-Mos (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Because it is utterly unimportant to the reader, that is why not. Saving space is hardly a reason at all. Take a look at the BBC match details for today's game [4]: Venue: St James' Park Date: Saturday, 7 November 2009 Kick-off: 1500 GMT. Nobody is using it, nobody will be looking for it, so why on earth would this article try and suggest by stuffing it into the first line that it is somehow relevant at all? MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As of 4/11/09 st james' park has changed its name to park —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanza-aj (talkcontribs) 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok then why does wikipedia style Upton Park as The Boleyn Ground when 99.9% of people call it Upton park? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Because that is its legal and proper name. In the same way the St James' Park is the legal and proper name of this place. It also happens to be the common name of the place aswell, whereas Upton Park has become the common name for the Boleyn ground. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

mickmac are you a newcastle supporter by any chance? is there a conflict of interest in your editing of this page and your loyalty to your club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can assure that our policies about conflict of interest do not prevent fans of a club editting its Wikipedia page. 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold up... @ SJP is not the "legal and proper name"? That's exactly what it is! Which is why it is important to name it in the first sentence. U-Mos (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to provide any evidence that it is the legal and proper name. You won't find it being used anywhere that has legal or proper weight. MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The name change has been announced. It's done. In what way does that not make it legal and proper? U-Mos (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
A legal name is something that is used for official purposes on official documents. It is pretty daft to suggest the club are now dealing with the Football League, or the banks, or the local council, using this temporary branding name. A proper name is also the name used when you want to formally refer to the ground - such as the still unchanged club address, or official programmes, etc etc, none of which has changed either. So, I ask again, what evidence have you got that the legal and proper name is not still St James' Park? This change of name is purely a temporary change for marketing purposes only, and it doesn't even look like they are going to take it forward as just a brand change either. Infact, the club has not even registered it as a trademark, see a list here. MickMacNee (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
So if, as you assert, it isn't the name of the grounds in any sense, what exactly do you think it is? U-Mos (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
A simple pr exercise highlighting to next year's potential sponsors of the format of a proposed new naming rights package, which became necessary only after the confusion caused by the original announcemnt that naming rights were going up for sale next season. MickMacNee (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well that's all OR. It IS the official name because we have a verifiable source calling it the official name. So that has to be accepted. U-Mos (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
No, look again. The source only says 'name', and actually recognises that it is a mere 'temporary rebranding' [5]. These secondary sources do not say 'official name', and neither do the club. This is not original research, it is plain old common sense. The current wording in the article regarding the status and purpose of this new 'name', is both correct and accurate, per the sources. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
And it also says "rename", "renamed", "renaming", "adding to the name". Plus the "rebranding" means that this form of the name will be used within the club, even if it is not at this second. The change has happened. So I say again: no matter that it's temporary or not, how exactly is this not the official name of the stadium? U-Mos (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
And how is the current article wording innacurate in that respect? It is not the 'official' name, for the million and one reasons already given. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
We've been over this. The current wording is accurate, no one is doubting that, but as the ground has been "renamed", "rebranded" etc. to the long version it warrants a clause in the first sentence. U-Mos (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe people who are informed about this should take the lead, and remove all sportsidrect nonsence from the wiki page, save a subheading stating that the owners, tried and failed to rename the stadium. The stadiums name is defined by what it is called by the media, the people and its owners. All of which call it, simply, St James' Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

semi-protected again[edit]

There is still a lot of reversion over the name on this article, mainly new and unregistered users adding the @ name to some or all places the name is mentioned. As such I've semi-protected the page until the existing move protection expires at 18:43 UTC on the 4th of May (I don't know if there is a significance to this date or not). I would encourage established editors here to place a prominent note on this talk page detailing what the consensus regarding the name is. I'd also encourage the consideration of placing html comments in the infobox and lead section pointing to that note. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I've protected it again. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • And I've added a (sourced to the BBC) mention of the new "official" name to the lead, as well as rewriting the "Stadium renaming" section. Hopefully that should sort everything out. Black Kite (t) 00:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Good work--thanks! Actually, I was on my way to Malleus's talk page to ask him if he could leave a note and maybe write it up properly. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Stadium Rename - Article needs updating[edit]

The owner has re-named it the Sports Direct Arena - the article is now misleading since there is a St. James' Park in Exeter.

Can someone now please update the page - for some reason its been proteced. The stadium is now the Sports Direct Arena and that's what people are going to be searching for. I understand that people didn't want to change it when it was as this name was rarely referred to on official webpages and in the media. Now this is official the page needs some changes, the new name is used on the and newcastles official website and is being referred to in the media as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just another sponsor title no matter how much publicity it's had. The page has been protected to protect our policy of not having to change the name of a stadium according to the whims of the latest sponsor. Even if people in Newcastle start calling it the Sports Direct stadium it's still too early to tell. It's still St James' Park. Britmax (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Whose policy is it not to call something its legal name do you refer to? Would it be WP:BULLSHIT ? It's not like the stadium name is going to change that often is it, sponsorship deals tend to be a minimum of 4 years? So are you saying that its name on here isn't going to change - even in 6 weeks time when everyone has forgotten it was ever called St James'? Under this dilusion, why is Arsenal's stadium called the Emirates and not its real name (Ashburton Grove)? Surely, that's just its sponsor's name? Man City changed their stadium name just this July to Eithad, most people cannot remember what it was before this, the same will be for St James' by Christmas. What the name on Stoke's ground called? Hmmmmm its sponsors name Britannia, I could go on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you think that the Geordies will forget that name, which the ground has had for over a century, in four years. Ashburton Grove was only used for a while for the pre Arsenal building site and unless you want to call it Sideway Colliery the Britannia did not have another name to use. In my experience people who live in the towns where these clubs are based carry on using the old name, and if they change the name it takes longer than the new name of this ground has had. "Most people cannot remember what it was before this". Really? How do you know this? Oh, and you might want to beef up your proof reading before you press "save". A few spelling errors crept in and you left the "Park" off "St James' Park". Britmax (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 13 November 2011[edit]

All references to "St.James park" as of the other day need to be changed to "Sports Direct Arena" as the name has legally and technically changed.

CCLaity (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why?Britmax (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The City of Manchester Stadium changed its name to the Etihad Arena earlier this year, yet it is still referred to as the CoMS everywhere on Wikipedia. How is St James' Park any different? Fintan264 (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the owner says so!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Shl (talkcontribs) 18:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2011[edit]

The wikipedia for St. James' Park Newcastle states to be the sixth largest stadium in the UK, when in fact it is the fourth with a 52,409 capacity. Wembley 90,000, Old Trafford 75'811, Emirates Stadium 60,361. Please could this be corrected. Many thanks Andy, Newcastle (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The UK also includes Celtic Park in Glasgow, and the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. This is all explained in the Capacity section of the Stadium Description. Fintan264 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 January 2012[edit]

Please change the page name from "St. James' Park" to "Sports Direct Arena" as it is quite well-known now that "St. James Park" is no longer the official name of the stadium. (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done, see the name section--Jac16888 Talk 20:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

16th Feb.2012 All official signage is removed, the site is now only known as the Sports Direct Arena ©. © 2012 Sports Direct International Plc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC) BBC official news of the original name change confirming St James is to be no longer used, , and local press with film showing all former signage removed and replaced with Sports Direct, the officail sponsor and name of the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus at WT:FOOTBALL is that we do not change the stadium to their sponsored names. GiantSnowman 14:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is wrong, it has been hijacked by socialists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Shl (talkcontribs) 18:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah no, where? Call the police!!! GiantSnowman 18:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2012[edit]

I request that this page be renamed 'The Sports Direct Arena'. The ground is no longer named St James's Park in any way, shape or form. It is officially named the Sports Direct Arena now - something Newcastle United fans fully embrace and welcome. Please change this page on our behalf. (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the discussion above before insisting on this. Britmax (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per above. mabdul 13:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

St James' ParkSports Direct Arena – seems we need a discussion over whether the article should be moved, given the recent barrage of edits and moves. The alternative is the official name that's displayed on large banners on the side of the stadium. Note there's no need for the definite article, it does not appear in the official name. I think the current name should stand but rather than edit summaries a discussion is a better place to hammer this out.

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose again per WP:COMMONNAME.--Kafuffle (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per long standing consensus that sponsored names are only used when there is no common alternative (e.g. DW Stadium). Number 57 14:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment rather than simply citing the policy, it will be of benefit to those unfamiliar with the disputed title but nevertheless willing to participate in the discussion, if some suitable contemporary evidence was provided. Leaky Caldron 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • London 2012 use "St James' Park", no mention of the official name: [6] [7]. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • That's a specific London Olympic requirement. Stadiums used for events cannot use sponsor names. I'm talking about the generality of reliable sources per the policy that is being quoted. Simply, if a policy is being quoted let's ensure that it is backed up by evidence to change the name or not. Leaky Caldron 15:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter why names are used, just how common they are; many names are promoted by official or other bodies, not least "Sports Direct Arena". That was the second site I checked. The BBC skirted round what it's called, instead saying e.g. teams came "to Tyneside" to play NUFC. The Telegraph too seem to avoid using either name though they use St James' Park here, two weeks ago: [8]. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • If you took some time to read the policy you are quoting WP:COMMONNAME you would understand why I have asked the question and how to provide the evidence instead of pulling selective sources out of thin air. I have absolutely no doubt what the result is likely to be, but don't get other people to do the work for you. If you are quoting a policy in your justification please treat it seriously. Otherwise is just looks like WP:IDONTLIKE. Leaky Caldron 16:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I created this RM after a couple of incorrect moves to "The Sports Direct Arena", noted there had not been a move discussion so started one. But I don't want the article moved; the onus is on those wanting the article moved to provide reasons and evidence.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose - the sponsor name could/will change every few years, and is certainly not in common use. Consensus is that we don't use sponsored names for leagues/stadiums. GiantSnowman 14:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Britmax (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Geez, can we get an RFC or something on this issue? The inconsistency even within the Premier League (Emirates Stadium vs. City of Manchester Stadium) is glaring. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    What inconsistency? As discussed on Talk:Emirates Stadium#Ashburton Grove vs the Emirates, the article is apparently named "Emirates Stadium" per WP:COMMONNAME (this is likely because that stadium has operated under this name since its opening in 2003, and more reliable sources use that name). On the other hand, City of Manchester Stadium remains the common name for that stadium (see Talk:City of Manchester Stadium#Requested move). This is the UK, not the United States, where most of the American media and other reliable sources like to use the new names immediately. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose / Comment Despite the lack of quantitative evidence presented by either side I agree that the article should not be renamed in the way suggested. However, it is essential that articles such as this clearly recognise by means of the Infobox that a formal/official/legal/sponsor name exists. Article infoboxes are intended to convey relevant details about the article subject matter. There can be little doubt that alternative names for the subject of the article are highly relevant, otherwise there would not be the level of frequent change and dispute. Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_contain.3F covers this nicely. Materially relevant to the subject but not trivial and already cited elsewhere in the article. Adding the alternative name will immediately reduce the frequency and validity of disputes relating to stadium naming problems. Leaky Caldron 10:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the stadium has long had a name; sponsorship gives it a trading name for a short time; the next sponsor will rename for a short time. Per WP:COMMONNAME Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I made a mistake here. I thought that Manchester City's stadium was called 'The Etihad' or something to that effect on wikipedia. On the basis of that and to a degree the 'Emirates', I thought the name should be changed to go with both the official name and that of other similar stadiums. This was a mistake on my part. Despite this, I still feel that perhaps a change in policy is in order, for example, what happens when the Emirates changed its spnsor and what about in 2 years time? Will people still refer to the Etihad as 'The city of Manchester stadium'? However, based on current policy, I hold my hands up and admit I made a mistake. I'm sorry for any inconveniance this has caused. Apologies, Mythical Curse (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

I hope nobody refers to the Emirates as the 'City of Manchester Stadium' - they're two seperate stadiums! GiantSnowman 13:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No, I was referring to the differing treatment of the names of those stadiums on Wikipedia; one uses the sponsored name, one doesn't. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • comment I think it's clear which way this will go, but I tried another search for "Sports Direct Arena" in the news and found this from two weeks ago which includes such highlights as Newcastle managing director Derek Llambias has re-affirmed the club's intention to sell the naming rights for St James' Park. and He admitted that both himself and Ashley still call the stadium St James' Park "and we will continue to do so". One reason this is exceptional is the official name is only temporary: there are no plans to make it permanent, and no attempt is being made to establish it as a replacement for St James' Park. Even the MD and owner still use the traditional name. "Sports Direct Arena" is an attempt to prove a point, that the owner can by fiat officially rename it against all common sense (and promote his overpriced tat emporiums at the same time). But it's not a serious attempt to create a long-term name or identity for the stadium.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME. Sponsor-names should be avoided when there is another name used by reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per wp:commonname, 99% of football fans will not know what you are talking about if you mention the "Sports Direct Arena". Bugger me, it sounds so generic it's just unbelievable. Cliftonian (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per CN as above, but why is it not St James's? Everybody says "Saint James-es". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

It hasn't been officailly changed yet so it is still Sports Direct Arena at the moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


Once again an article stands inccorect on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbieranger (talkcontribs) 22:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Robbie - if you wish to move the article, please use WP:RM. Regards, GiantSnowman 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


Shouldn't it be better to have something like "St James' Park (Often reffered to by it's sponsor name Sports Direct Arena) is a stadium.... Then Maybe have a section explaining that it is called Sports Direct Arena in domestic football but has to be reffered to as St James' Park in european matches etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbieranger (talkcontribs) 23:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No. It's not called that, not even officially/mistakenly as it was for a short time. It's reverted back to the common sense/common name under the new sponsor, though for most people it never really changed and was always St James' Park.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

As above. Remove redirection. There is no such place as the 'Sports Direct Arena'. For many (50,000+), there never was... -- (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notable omission[edit]

Maybe I've missed it, but does this article actually explain why the ground is called St James - which St James as well, a wikilink to the right St James would be helpful as there are quite a few! This would be an interesting detail to add to the article! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 15:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on St James' Park. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)