Talk:Melbourne Rectangular Stadium

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

Claimed 50,000 capacity[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Name[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 )[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

German Stadia[edit]

"the common feature of German stadia in which the stand behind each/one goal is constructed with the option of having standing room during Association Football 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)[reply]

Move to AAMI Park[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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\talk 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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\talk 05:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

Images[edit]

I took a photo at the recent Melbourne Storm members' open day, but haven't been able to successfully insert the image. I was thinking it would be a good for the capacity section as its a wide angle shot of the eastern stand. If someone who knows what they're doing could have a go, that'd be great. The image is in the commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:E_stand_MRS.JPG Thanks. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Witchetty Grub"[edit]

a local name for AAMi Park that seems to be coming about, should we make a reference to that here?--121.219.13.87 (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 August 2023[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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 15:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Rectangular Stadium → AAMI Park – 'AAMI Park' is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME. Hardly any sources seem to use 'Melbourne Rectangular Stadium'. Loytra (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the sources I use use call it Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. And I abhor commercial names, because they tell us absolutely nothing about where a stadium is. Remember, our articles are for the whole world, not just people who already know about the venue. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that... Stadiums use sponsored names because the sponsors pay them money. Until the sponsors also pay Wikipedia money, we shouldn't be giving the sponsors free advertising. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean but, at the same time, that doesn't really matter. Whether or not we personally think it's ethical shouldn't determine the name of this page.
Can you show me which sources your referring to? Almost all of the cited sources on this page alone refer to it as AAMI Park. Loytra (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about this stadium to comment specifically, want to give a reminder that sponsored names should only be used if that is the only name or the overwhelming majority use that name day to day. Sources sometimes aren't good here as they generally use sponsored names regardless of if the general public use the name or not. Mn1548 (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but it's long standing policy not to use sponsor names for the actual article, I see no exception required here. Which sadly is not applied to articles pointing to the page, so we see a bunch of different names for Docklands et al in older articles. It's up to the reader to figure out they're all the same ground. Local Potentate (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for reminding me of another reason I don't like sponsored names. They change, far too often, and for no other reason than money changing hands. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"but it's long standing policy not to use sponsor names" - It certainly is not policy. The policy is WP:COMMONNAME. The article title should match what independent reliable sources use, whether that's a sponsored name or not. 162 etc. (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed and adopted 16 years ago
Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 28#Stadium naming
Also see
List of sports venues in Australia Local Potentate (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Local consensus doesn't override sitewide policy. See WP:CONLEVEL. 162 etc. (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are correct, which suggests consensus isn't required. So rename away, plus lots of pages are also in the firing line to renamed to whatever the hell they are this week. Local Potentate (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 18:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - we do not use sponsored names. GiantSnowman 18:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ^^ what they said Nzs9 (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - using sponsored names breaks all kinds of things when names change, which occurs every few years. See the discussion link above as well as other discussions including Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_33#Stadium_naming_pt_3. Notably since the discussion in that link occurred, all but two of the venues have since changed sponsored names (and one of those has been demolished), which justifies the decision to use the permanent non-sponsored name. Sponsored names cause confusion (ANZ Stadium has referred to both Stadium Australia and the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre in the past; other names are also potentially ambiguous, such as Optus Oval/Optus Stadium, AAMI Park/AAMI Stadium, Telstra Stadium/Telstra Dome, etc.) The "permanent" name is the WP:COMMONNAME over the life of the structure and is certainly in active usage (preferred by the ABC, and events such as the recent 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup#Venues -- Chuq (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the stadium has been named AAMI Park since it opened over a decade ago, it has overwhelmingly been the common name "over the life of the structure". It hasn't changed at all, and unless it does in the near future, I don't understand the argument that we have to stick a name hardly anybody uses.
    If and when the sponsor does change, I'd definitely understand moving it back to the old title. Loytra (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You just repeated what you wrote at the beginning, to which I responded - Almost all the sources I use use call it Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. Do we really have to go around in circles? HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per longstanding consensus that we do not use sponsored names when there is a non-sponsored alternative. Number 57 16:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whilst a very unwieldy name, Melbourne Rectangular Stadium is the name the ABC uses (it also has a policy of avoiding sponsored names) and was the official name used before the naming rights deal. It is still called this when sponsorship rules, like at AFC games, mean that any non AFC sponsorships can't be seen. (see here) Even the Docklands Stadium article doesn't use the sponsored name, despite never actually having been called that officially.MarkiPoli (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the plaque at the stadium has Melbourne Rectangular Stadium as the name of the venue, the redirect from the commercial name to this article is appropriate usage here. Storm machine (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2023 (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.

AAMI Park[edit]

I'm not making another move request considering my previous one just closed a few days ago. But I really do not think the arguments for keeping this page at it's current name are very strong.

A lot of editors have brought up that consensus has been keep stadium names at their non-commercially branded ones. However, as others have stated WP:CONLEVEL says that local consensus does not override official sitewide policy. And official sitewide policy is to use the WP:COMMONNAME.

Another argument is that 'Melbourne Rectangular Stadium' is the common name, but that's simply not true. It doesn't matter if that's the name most of your sources use; a quick Google search shows that 'AAMI Park' is overwhelmingly the common name. Seriously, hardly any news article refer to it as Melbourne Rectangular Stadium.

The third argument I saw was that editors simply don't like using branded names. And, well, tough luck, lol. Your personal feelings on the stadium's name are completely irrelevant to this discussion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to oppose a name change. Loytra (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you and others have pointed out, Wikipedia policy allows you to trample over a decade and half of consensus, so why not go ahead and do it?Local Potentate (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melbourne_Rectangular_Stadium&oldid=1208404666"