Talk:Melbourne Rectangular Stadium

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sempiternal~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 9 April 2010 (Undid revision 354287480 by Sempiternal (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:10, 9 April 2010 by Sempiternal~enwiki (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 354287480 by Sempiternal (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Australia: Melbourne / Sports Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Melbourne Rectangular Stadium is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Rugby league Start‑class Low‑importance

	Melbourne Rectangular Stadium is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Claimed 50,000 capacity

The article claims the stadium can be expanded to hold 50,000 people. The only articles I can find that mention 50,000 are ones saying major events where 50,000 people are expected will be moved to the Telstra Dome. Please provide a citation for this claim. Mikel Ward (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are loads of articles out there on the foundations that will allow for future expansion to 50,000. Have added just one. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The stadium cannot be expanded to 50,000 temporarily. Rather it is designed so that in the future it can be permanently expanded to 50,000 should this be required. 121.213.160.122 (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Name

Does this stadium have a proper name yet? I have seen it referred to as "Swan Street Stadium"/"Swan St Stadium" in a few articles. No doubt there will be a naming rights sponsor but it'd be better to stick to a neutral name as per Docklands Stadium/Stadium Australia/Sydney Football Stadium etc. -- Chuq (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, still known as the MRS until somebody buys some sort of naming rights to it. Normy 01:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it now has. It will be called AAMI Park. I have decided to stick with the neutral name as the article name but I have reffered it is now called as AAMI Park. User:Jay95

Nicknames

Where are all these nicknames coming from? none of them are referenced, so i'm not sure why they're still there. Chumchum14 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

i would have to agree with the nick names... they all seem like they are made up names based on the Docklands venue. Seeming as it is a new venue it doesnt have a name yet. Auxodium II (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auxodium III (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed ALL nicknames as it isnt finished yet and to be honest it needs to be used in order to have an organic nickname to be adopted for the ground.

is it acceptable to have it as the thunderdome? contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.57.216 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thunderdome is a silly name for it. It is already one of the names used for Calder Raceway. In fact, I think that was the marketed name at some stage. I guess the Sydneyites who drive Rugby League may not realise that though. So, it's already clichéd and it would be foolish to have two major sporting centres with the same name. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read the reference? Former Melbourne Storm CEO Brian Waldron clearly stated that "The Thunderdome" is the nickname the Storm will be using for the stadium. It doesn't matter if you personally don't like it - if one of the stadium's tenants wants to refer to the venue by a certain name, it's more than fair to have it listed here. sempiternal (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A nickname doesn't come into existence because a CEO officially decrees it to be so. That would make it Storms official name for the stadium. A nickname is something that grows out of public and media popularity, such as Jeff's Shed. It's not a nickname until there's a reference elsewhere for it, not just in a Strom CEO press release.And the way you have put it in as the heading on the Infobox makes it look like the official name. That is simply wrong. Stop trying to dominate this article with Storm marketing hype. HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How exactly am I trying to "dominate" the article? The Storm is a tenant of this stadium and if they're going to use a nickname to refer to their home - just like "The Graveyard" - it should at least be mentioned here. If I replaced Melbourne Rectangular Stadium with "The Thunderdome" then you would have a point - but I entered the name in the nickname field, which to me, is perfectly reasonable. It's fairly standard on stadium pages. If Victory, Heart or the Rebels come up with a name they want to use, go ahead and add them. I won't bother adding "The Thunderdome" again because I can tell that you'll just keep on removing it. sempiternal (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my point that a nickname cannot be simply something decreed by the CEO of a commercial entity before anyone has even been inside the place. And, it may be a problem with the infobox template, but when it was there your nickname became the name above the photograph, looking much more than a nickname. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm resisting the urge to comment on the thread up until this point, but I do see some points to both sides. I actually came onto the talk page because I had a suggestion of sorts, and one that might help the evolution of the article. I do get the feeling that there are going to be some "ownership issues" (of the stadium itself, and perhaps the article down the track) between football codes of the rectangular persuasion. There'll be the rugby league perspectives, rugby union ones, Victory ones, Heart ones and and perhaps generic A-league ones. So I'd suggest having a section dedicated to each. The seating capacity will be different for different games, the playing surface might stay the same but the field of play will be different depending on code ( even league and union have different dimensions and different surface markings!) I'd suggest a section for Rugby (with sub sections for league and union) and a Section for A-League (with sub sections for Heart and Victory) Who knows, Gridiron Victoria might end up as a tenant there as well. Thoughts? Paul
Paul Roberton (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC) (ps spare a thought for the curator and their ground staff lol )

Some good observations there Paul, and I agree that having separate sections for the different stakeholders makes sense. Your hierarchical suggestion for that structure sounds good too. Given the enthusiasm of earlier editors for telling us of nicknames, we may have to do something about the stadium template. It takes the nickname and makes it look like almost a subheading of the article with its font size and placement. Multiple nicknames may create a mess there. I'm not skilled at template behaviour. You? Others? HiLo48 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not good with templates but happy to have a go. I've established a workspace here. Paul ( Paul Roberton (talk)) 01:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

German Stadia

"the common feature of German stadia in which the stand behind each/one goal is constructed with the option of having standing room during football (soccer) matches and normal seating for other events such as rugby league" – How many German stadia are actually used for Rugby League? (No need to be too accurate – just round it to the nearest 10.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.136 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Move to AAMI Park

Without any discussion at all, user HorseloverFat has moved this article to this new name. This move does not match the situation with Melbourne's other specially built, newer, commercially named stadium - Etihad Stadium. It is known in Misplaced Pages by its original, non-commercial name, Docklands, with a redirect from Etihad. Both Etihad and AAMI are obviously temporary, commercial names. Firstly, I don't believe such renames should occur without discussion (a lot of this has happened with this article), and secondly, I don't believe Misplaced Pages should be supporting commercial causes in this way.

Can the move be reverted until some sensible, independent discussion has taken place? (I don't know how to revert a move.)

HiLo48 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Football Park, York Park and Lang Park are some other examples where the generic name is preferred over the corporate name. I am not sure myself what I prefer. I know I am not as concerned about "supporting commercial causes" as about the temporary nature of these names. Certainly some discussion is warranted and so the article has been subsequently moved back. -- Mattinbgn\ 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that stadiums shouldn't be identified by sponsorship agreements, but I have no problem with HorseloverFat taking the initiative and being bold. It kick started a debate on the topic. Paul ( Paul Roberton (talk)) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a problem with anyone's conduct to date. It is the standard bold, revert, discuss cycle in operation. -- Mattinbgn\ 05:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) has strong policy against using commercial names for stadiums (stadia?). This means that they will use something different from AAMI Park. As the ABC is a major broadcaster and televiser of sport in Australia, it will be interesting, and relevant to Misplaced Pages, to see what name they settle on. I believe the ABC decision will be a good one on which to base the name of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories: