Talk:City of Manchester Stadium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Random

The stadium is also called Boo-camp and Tameside Stadium by supporters of Manchester United.

Also, what happened to the naming of one stand the Bell End?

There should be a note stating that "football" in foreign countries really means "soccer".

My revert

I reverted the addition of the phrase Man City is short for Manchester City as in the phrase, "the fans of Man City"., as I don't see why explaining that abbreviation (which is not used anywhere in the article) is required in the lead. Oldelpaso 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Where to put this?

Following the success of the Commonwealth Games, the decision to convert the stadium into a football venue received criticism from athletics figures such as Jonathan Edwards and Sebastian Coe,

I think the above sentence should go in the article somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Oldelpaso 10:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions

While I've seen "Citadel" jokingly used once or twice in fanzines, it is not a nickname in common use. As for ground expansion, I have heard that the option for expansion is there if needed, but I have not been able to find a reliable source saying that, and it is certainly false to imply that such an expansion is currently planned. Oldelpaso 19:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Sportcity is the area where the stadium is based rather than a name for the stadium itself, and encompasses the athletics track, Velodrome etc. COMS or CoMS is an abbreviation rather than a nickname. As for "Council House", it may be used pejoratively by United fans, but certainly not by Blues. Oldelpaso 17:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not specified who uses the nickname(s). This isn't a Blues' page, this is an encyclopedia. A large number of people refer to Eastlands as The Council House, their politics don't detract from that fact. We shouldn't be partisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.232.5 (talk • contribs) 22:47, October 12, 2006

No, we should not be partisan, and as Council House is a deragotory term used by some United fans (and only United fans) it should not be included. Likewise, Old Trafford ahould not refer to the ground as the Swamp, United fans should not be referred to as Rags nor City fans as Bitters. In any case nicknames need to be backed up by verifiable material from reliable sources before they can be considered. Oldelpaso 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find some citations for the nicknames then I'm good. You can't just add in names that you and your mates have made up though. I'm talking citations from national or local press. The Manchester Evening News would be a good place to start. I assume that the derogatory nicknames will be excluded by this condition. aLii 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if a major news source or other item which qualifies under Wikipedia:Reliable sources states a nickname for a ground, the article can include a mention of this, providing it is in the proper context. I seem to remember this (or a similar debate) coming up over on the project page a while back, and I said then that I felt that the "official" or most popular nickname was suitable for inclusions in infoboxes, but any others should be worked into the main article in an appropriate section. QmunkE 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference to the nickname The Council House, although I don't know how reliable this qualifies as being. It seems to be written by a United Fan. http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g187069-s406/Manchester:United-Kingdom:Sports.And.Activities.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.162.74 (talk • contribs) .

As that is a wiki-style site along the lines of Wikitravel, it is not something which would be classed as a reliable source (take a look at the page's history). Oldelpaso 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image in infobox

Is this really the best image to use in the infobox? It seems a bit dark and half the picture is of some tarmac (no offense intended to the photographer!). Can a better image not be found? QmunkE 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the details for that image, I thought it was free use, but its CC-by-SA, so it probably should be changed given that there's plenty of truly free use pictures of the stadium available. There's an image of the stadium exterior on commons, Image:CIMG1439.JPG which has better lighting, though that also has a significant proportion of tarmac in the picture. I have plenty of self-taken pictures of the interior, but none of the exterior. I had a look on Flickr, but there's no Creative Commons pictures which are better than what's already here. Perhaps Image:CIMG1422.JPG would be the best for the infobox? Oldelpaso 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article

I have suggested this article for use on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Please feel free to add your comments here. Kingjamie 12:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that you copy your submission there (which is a nice summary) to the lead here. Your current lead is a bit thin. --kingboyk 21:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Broken formatting

The article currently has some kind of broken formatting. I've taken a look at the coding but cannot find the cause. The error may cause this article to breach its featured article status, so an editor familliar with the article could do with taking a look at it asap. Jhamez84 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a problem with the infobox. Since sorted. Jhamez84 10:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

the article is too long for an article on a sports stadium Johncmullen1960 09:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pitch dimensions

The infobox currently shows the pitch's length to 1mm. I don't believe it - I'd say that within 1 metre (note Eurospelling!) is sufficient. -- BPMullins | Talk 05:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lease

Is the lease with Manchester City really 250 years? I'll add the citation needed. Limasbravo (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see for example [1], [2], [3] or [4]. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickname--"Middle Eastlands" ?

From the BBC reference, "News of a takeover bid backed by the Abu Dhabi royal family was greeted warmly by supporters, who have already jokingly renamed their home ground Middle Eastlands".

I am not convinced that this is a common nickname at all and is only a name used "jokingly"...I believe this edit should be reverted ASAP as any "joke" nickname would then be included any anyone, ever if it was reported by the BBC. Seth Whales (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless this nickhame really takes off (which it actually appears to be doing, but it's too early to tell yet) this nickname is a private joke and not enough to be added here. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see at all why you're opposed to it being in there. There was already a pun name mentioned in that section (The Blue Camp), so if you remove Middle Eastlands you'll have to remove that as well. Mas 18 dl (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

True, names that the stadium could have been are irrelevant too, I suggest The Blue Camp is removed as well. Seth Whales (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Images used

I added the non-free use image (Image:City of Machester Stadium @ Commonwealth Games.jpg) to illustrate the temporary stands that were used during the 2002 Commonwealth Games, which the free use image (Image:City of Manchester Stadium 2002.jpg) does not. I believe it is an important stage in the development of the stadium and the temporary stands should be shown some where in the article. Seth Whales (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We can only use non-free images where there is no free equivalent, and their usage should be minimal. While the free image isn't exactly equivalent, it shows some of the changes, and given that there are several free images present in the article, I don't think adding a non-free image could be described as minimal. It might also be possible to get a free image of the temporary stand. There are a few on Flickr, asking a Flickr user here to release such an image under a creative commons licence might bear fruit - people are often flattered if you tell them you'd like to use their image on Wikipedia. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Stadium Australia

The City of Manchester stadium looks almost identical (albeit on a smaller scale) to the Sydney Olympic Stadium. Any idea if any of the same people were used in the design process? 58.178.71.234 (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The City of Manchester Stadium was designed by Arup Associates. According to Stadium Australia, the architect there was Bligh Lobb Sports Architects. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

4 star / 5 star stadium

Eastlands cannot possibly be a 5 star stadium, as that requires a capacity of at least 50,000. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The star system has been obsolete for 2 years, see UEFA elite stadium.

FAR

I have nominated City of Manchester Stadium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Thankyou, Aaroncrick (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Copying WP without attribution

Guess what? This site: http://premiership.soccer-stuff.com/City-of-Manchester-Stadium has copied the article onto its page, as far as I can see without attribution. And I mean basically the whole article, images, text, the lot. Someone want to write them a narky email? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MIRROR, there are some instructions and generic emails if anyone is bothered. Woody (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Naming Of Stands

It appears to be mischief making but a number of unnamed editors have been trying to include information on the 'Bell End' within the article. To clear matters up this is the story of what happened with the naming of the stand (this is factually correct).

City decided to have a vote to name the new 'main' stand at Eastlands when they moved there. After discussions with fan groups and others a shortlist of nominations was eventually put forward. That list included these options: The Kippax, The Maine Stand, The Colin Bell Stand, The Joe Mercer Stand and the Mercer-Allison Stand. An internet vote was to be used and, when combined with nominations from the Supporters Club, that would decide the name of the new stand. On the eve of the final internet vote the poll showed 3 main contenders - The Colin Bell Stand, The Joe Mercer Stand, and the Mercer-Allison Stand. This was not public knowledge at the time, but within the Club the perception was that if the votes for the two names including Mercer were combined then Mercer would be the winner, however it was close, and the Supporters Club votes still had to be taken into consideration. Then overnight and caused by Manchester United hijacking the voting thousands of additional votes came in for Colin Bell as a United site had incorrectly claimed the stand would be called The Bell End and urged fans to vote.

The internet poll meant that Colin Bell was the undisputed winner, however within City it was debated as to whether the vote should stand. A review of the voting pattern was made and, when the Club looked at the time that votes came flooding in for Bell, they took a count of the votes made. At that point there wasn't much in it between the 2 Mercer options and Bell, but when the Supporters Club vote was also taken into consideration, Colin Bell was still the winner. And so the stand was named the Colin Bell Stand.

At no time, other than in jokes, was there ever a suggestion that the stand would be called The Bell End. It's never, ever been suggested by the Club that either of the 2 end stands would be named after Bell. Therefore it is irrelevent to this factual entry. The article can say that Colin Bell won the vote, but it should never talk about the Bell End as that would open up all Wikipedia entries for incorrect rumour, mischief making and so on. It's as ridiculous as someone putting on the Old Trafford site that 'Uwe Rosler's Granddad bombed Old Trafford' - obviously he didn't but Old Trafford was bombed during the war and there were T-shirts in the 90s saying he did! This has to be factual. BillyMeredithShorts (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

---

It's a FACT that rival fans hijacked the vote because they wanted the stand to be called "The Bell End" - even though it would never be officially called that. The news reports identify this clearly. It's important from an encyclopaedic point of view to report all facts and not ignore those which don't meet with one's sensibilities. Declare yourself as a Manchester City fan or not, and we can see how objective you really are about this. I am not a Manchester United nor a City fan and have nothing to gain from this argument, except for ensuring the whole truth is exposed in relation to this subject. Mischief making? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.242.7 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Facts are important and the fact is that the stand is not an end and that it is named after Colin Bell after a supporter vote. Any comments/amendments to the history that do not contain a signatory are always questionable. The Manchester Evening News link doesn't make reference to the Bell End, so that adds to the perception that this is mischief making. BillyMeredithShorts (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

>> BillyMeredithShorts says: "The Manchester Evening News link doesn't make reference to the Bell End, so that adds to the perception that this is mischief making."

-- The link BillyMeredithShorts refers to actually reads "City back-room staff feared that rival fans had voted for Bell ahead of ex-boss Joe Mercer so that they could dub the stand the Bell End."

Is someone "mischief making" or is someone else just reading what they want to read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.36.240.11 (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! Spotted the mention on the MEN story. Genuine mistake.BillyMeredithShorts (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Eastlands/CoMS

This link Manchester City Council Eastlands Information makes clear that Eastlands is the name of the sporting complex on which the CoMS stands along with several others. Haldraper (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the point - the stadium is referred to Eastlands by some media outlets and supporters alike. Likewise the abbreviation CoMs (City of Manchester stadium) is frequently used on Manchester City's website: [5] [6] And since when was the stadium in the Bradford district? My understanding was that it was in Sportcity. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No Steve, you've missed the point: Eastlands as the above link makes clear is the whole site: the stadium, athletics track, squash centre etc. That fact that some journalists lazily and incorrectly use it to refer to the stadium doesn't change that.

To answer your question 'since when was the stadium in the Bradford district?' According to the Bradford page, the area where the stadium's located has been called that since at least 1196. Haldraper (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Note, the Bradford page does not have any citations to prove the area has been called that since 1196, therefore your claim is invalid. Judging from your talk page history, you seem the type who pointlessly goes around editing stuff which doesn't need editing, and thus (excuse me if I'm wrong) ends up needlessly causing ructions with other users. My opinion is that the introduction did not need changing. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, can I just say - I don't see what business you have here, if anything you are undermining and needlessly editing other users' hard work - which I hasten to add, has got this page to featured level without your recents contributions.

"can I just say..." No you can't: see WP:OWN. Haldraper (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is you seem to be here by nitpicking and annoying other people Stevo1000 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Other users such as Oldelpaso, who still regularly contribute to this page, clearly have no problem with the introductory paragraph stating that the City of Manchester Stadium is also known as to as Eastlands and abbreviated as CoMs (which is sometimes officially used by Manchester City F.C.).

So I've reinstated the introductory paragraph and changed the introduction from also known as to commonly referred to which makes a clear distinction between the stadium's real name. Furthermore Bradford-with-Beswick has been changed to just Manchester. If anything, the stadium is in Sportcity as that is where the address of stadium states it is, definitely not Bradford-with-Beswick which I (honestly) didn't know existed, it is most definitely not an official district of Manchester. But then again, neither is Sportcity so the matter is open to debate.

I hope this does not develop into a silly edit war and is the last I hear of this pointless issue. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, let's avoid that.

I'm a bit confused when you say "it is, definitely not Bradford-with-Beswick which I (honestly) didn't know existed". So you've just heard of the place but you're sure the ground's not there?

As someone whose family hails from within yards of City's current home, I can assure you that Bradford and Beswick are ancient and still existing districts of Manchester. No-one round there now says that they live in 'Sportcity'. Haldraper (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Sportcity is the name of the brownfield development, built on a site in Bradford. The then-disused land used to be part of Bradford pit. Eastlands is used colloquially for both the stadium and the area, that is, the bit with the sporting facilities, not the residential parts in close proximity. Where one area ends and another starts is not always well-defined in Manchester. Postal addresses, electoral wards and church parishes can all be different. A house in one man's Bradford is in another man's Clayton.

There used to be a visitors centre at the southern car park entrance where they had a lot of detail about the history of the immediate area, but unfortunately it isn't there any more. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right OEP, the stadium is as I understand it directly on top of the disused main shaft of Bradford colliery. There was some talk when the stadium opened of a memorial at the ground to the men killed before it was shut in the early 70's. Haldraper (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

CoMs is built on the old Bradford colliery, in fact the club and council have been re-mediating the ground around the stadium recently. But the stadium is definitely not in Bradford-with-Beswick as Haldraper claims, yes Bradford or Beswick - but Bradford-with-Beswick is not one of the Manchester's 30 districts. Sportcity has more of a claim as that is the stadium's district address is:
City of Manchester Stadium
Sportcity
Rowsley St
Manchester
M11 3FF
But that has the same issue, its not a district of Manchester Stevo1000 (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I have never said that the stadium is in Bradford-with-Beswick as you claim, it's in Bradford which is why I piped the link to say that.

I'm not sure why Wikipedia has a page called Bradford-with-Beswick when the text on that page makes clear that Beswick and Bradford are adjoining but historically separate districts of Manchester.

Anyway, the refs make it clear by stating the stadium's location as Bradford. Haldraper (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

From the first-named article: Bradford, Greater Manchester is neighboured by Beswick, Greater Manchester to the west, and the two areas are sometimes referred to as Bradford-with-Beswick. Seems straightforward. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't seen the page just for Bradford. I've repiped the link to it. Haldraper (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to put Beswick and Bradford back where you found it. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Haldraper (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Sportcity Visitor Centre is now on the other side of the stadium close to where B of the Bang used to be. It still contains info on the site. Personally, I think Bradford should be removed from the page because Manchester City Council made a big deal about rebranding the site during the construction of the Games stadium. The feeling was that 'Bradford' could not be the official location of the new 'City' stadium because of the possible confusion (yes, I know it sounds unbelievable) with Bradford City. Initially, the development site was rebranded Eastlands (and the Asda store is still officially their Eastlands store) but later this was changed to Sportcity. MCFC's official address when they moved in was: MCFC, City Of Manchester Stadium, Rowsley Street, Sportcity, Manchester, M11 3FF. I think the Bradford moniker has to be removed. It's fine to say the stadium was built on the site of Bradford coal mine, but I wouldn't say the stadium's specific location is known as Bradford anymore.BillyMeredithShorts (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the land which CoMs and its surrounding development has always been Sportcity to me since the redevelopment, although I knew Beswick or Bradford are the districts next to CoMs but I have never once referred to CoMs being in Beswick or Bradford, because its in Sportcity.

Their are numerous brown tourist signposts on roads around Manchester that clearly state for instance: "i:For Sportcity" and then you'll see a list of the venues "City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester Velodrome etc.". I'm sure you've at least seen one and you get my drift and the truth is, not one single mention of "Beswick" or "Bradford" on the signpost, just "Sportcity"

The City of Manchester Stadium has Sportcity in its address - not one mention of Bradford or Beswick. Does that not say it all?? Stevo1000 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We now have two references confirming that the stadium is in Bradford. I think BMS is right that the reason the club don't include it in their official address is to avoid any possible confusion with the city in West Yorkshire.

Phrases like "Personally, I think", "I wouldn't say" and "I have never once referred.." all add up to original research. Haldraper (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image was recently changed from File:Mcfc stad pano.jpg to File:Citeh Of Manchester Stadium.jpg. I have changed it back as I think the former is a better quality image. The latter is out of focus, and rather distractingly also depicts the back of somebody's head. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Stadium capacity

What is the stadium's true maximum capacity? The Infobox states that the capacity (for football) is 47,826 yet the RS citation [1] that is meant to support that number states that it is 47,726 (with the consequence that it actually undermines that value rather than supports it!). Reference [1] is now a little dated and the 47,726 number in it was, I believe, the official capacity of the stadium after it was first converted from being an athletics arena in 2003. That is also the number used in the article's lead text, and the Infobox also used to display that value when it was first included there (with correct support from RS reference [1]). It is my understanding that the capacity of CoMS has been slightly increased in the intervening years since MCFC first became its tenants and the "stadium opening" friendly game against Barcelona was played there ... but I have no idea how many such "capacity tweaks" have occurred nor what value should be cited as the correct current CoMS capacity (please excuse the unintended alliteration!).

I have no clue where the 47,826 number comes from although that number is also used here (but its source is uncited) and here (but its cited source is the same incorrect one used in this CoMS article). The Premier League on its OWS uses the value 47,715 (select "Ground Capacities" in the drop-down box). I have also seen another source of PL attendances (but I cannot remember where now, so you'll have to trust me on this one) that provides the % of available stadium capacity that each attendance figure represents which uses the value 48,000 to determine City's %s, thus diluting them somewhat (e.g., an attendance at CoMS of 45,512 represents 95.2% of the possible maximum if 47,826 is used, but only 94.8% if 48,000 is used, and so on).

So what is the current correct figure? Whatever it is, it is the ONLY figure that should be displayed in the Infobox. Over time the stadium's maximum capacity is obviously going to change - either minimally (such as 47,726 to 47,826) or significantly (such as if mooted plans to expand CoMS into a 60,000 capacity stadium come to fruition) - so what is needed in the main body of this article is a "capacity progression" table similar to the one provided in [1] for Maine Road. Does anyone reading this have the data necessary to produce such a table? Going forward, I would like to capture the stadium's actual capacity for any given season in the Infobox of each individual MCFC season article, but first I need the data and a reliable source to justify each number. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 09:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know when I got changed to 47,826 but that is wrong, it is 47,726 per the source, and has not changed since the club first moved in. Anything that comes from the club uses 47,726, and indeed if you go on a tour of the ground that is the figure the guide tells you. The % capacity might have been Football365, who do something of that nature, but some of their capacities are woefully inaccurate - in the past they've had figures over 100% for some clubs! I realise I've cited no sources there - I'm currently in the middle of moving house, so I don't have access to my sources, or the notes I made when I first researched and wrote this article. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So it appears that 47,826 figure is a bit of a "Wikiality" then - which most likely originated with someone fat-fingering their keyboard when entering the real value! I always believed the 48,000 figure to be an approximate rounding error (although why that site, if it wanted its % stats. taken seriously, couldn't be bothered to locate and use the official published capacity beggars belief) but I had to assume there was something of substance to the 47,826 figure given that it was being used / substituted in so many Wikipedia football-related articles. I had already reverted the figure in this article's Infobox to match the lead in text and cited RS (as well as to attract the attention of other editors to this discussion), and I have now gone ahead and modified the 47,826 figures in those two articles referenced above (here and here) to 47,726. OTOH, I am still rather troubled by the 47,715 figure used in the Premier League OWS (since that value also appears to be an arbitrary number plucked out of someone's ass! :( ) because if we cannot rely on the PL OWS for accuracy what can we rely on? If it was an outdated value one could understand and empathize, which is why I would like to see a "capacity progression" table in this article so that one could recognize where the incorrect value had come from (it would be one of the earlier values in the table). However, it looks like we don't need that table yet as the capacity has been a constant 47,726 since the start of the 2003-04 season. I'll wait a little while longer before adding that value into the MCFC season articles to see if anyone else has anything to add to this discussion. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 10:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The figure has varied since 2003 but 47,726 does appear to be the current figure. The Club has changed seating within the South Stand, Legends Lounge balcony (either side), the area next to the directors area, and most recently within the Directors area. It's likely to keep varying slightly until major construction work takes place (soon, hopefully!). Table progression may be a good idea - the beginning of the 2003-04 season saw record attendance increase almost game by game and that was mainly because of seating changes the club did in those first few weeks.BillyMeredithShorts (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That City's AVERAGE attendance for the 2003-04 season PL games was over 98% is quite phenomenal IMO ... many top flight clubs don't have HIGHEST attendances with that magnitude of percentage! What you state WRT various seating modifications makes a lot of sense to me and it was such a scenario that I initially believed to be the source of three of the various numbers being used (but not the 48,000 rounded-up number). IMO these small variations in capacity over the various seasons should be captured - ideally in both a "capacity progression" table in this article as well as in the relevant individual MCFC season articles. The same sort of information is captured for the Maine Road ground in a cool graph that plots average attendance, highest attendance and stadium capacity values for each season of its eighty year history. CoMS' current lifespan is an order of magnitude smaller and producing such a graph would probably be overkill; IMO a series of table entries would be quite sufficient for now.

The beginnings of such a "capacity progression" table in this article is already in place in the form of the "Average Premier League attendances" table (to which I just added two new columns). The numbers in that table's "% of capacity" column are simply the numbers in the "Average attendance" column divided by the constant value 47,726. I went ahead and added those two new columns based on the assurance by Oldelpaso that the capacity of CoMS has not changed since the stadium was converted in 2003. If, as you state, the stadium capacity has indeed varied by season since 2003 then a new fifth column needs to be added to that table capturing those individual seasonal maximum capacities, and the numbers in the "% of capacity" column will then become the numbers in the "Average attendance" column divided by the corresponding seasonal capacity value in the new column.

The real issue is from where do we get (in a reliable form) the new seasonal capacity numbers representing the modifications done to the South Stand, Legends Lounge, the Directors area, etc.? That is, in a form that can be supported by RS citations. Or possibly even not so supported; such numbers could initially be entered marked "citation needed". For instance, the corresponding "capacity versus attendance" graph in the Maine Road article is not supported with a cited RS, although I suspect it was put together by Oldelpaso based on data provided in Manchester City: The Complete Record. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Another 6 months gone and now another 4 new sourced maximum capacity values for the stadium! The PL OWS stats. page still lists the ground capacity of CoMS for this season as being 47,715 (which is now most likely old news if it was ever correct news!) while the PL's Club Directory for this season (http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/4b/8a/0,,12306~166475,00.pdf) lists the official ground capacity of CoMS, as of the start of this season, as being 47,405 (new value #1). That is the figure that the List of football stadiums in England article now uses for its listing for CoMS, while the List of British stadiums by capacity and List of Premier League stadiums articles still use the 47,726 figure. This article has now updated the official capacity for the stadium in its Infobox from 47,726 to 48,805 (new value #2) based on a MCFC OWS article about the Dublin Super Cup (citation [3]) published this past June by David Clayton. Someone has also added to the Infobox a poorly sourced domestic football capacity limit of 47,350 (new value #3) based on rival fan segregation requirements, while a well-sourced capacity limit of 45,500 (new value #4) based on the advertizing requirements for UEFA games has also been added to the Infobox. So, as they say, the plot thickens!

I am highly sceptical of both the accuracy and sourcing validity of that third new "fan segregation" value. Consequently, I have removed it. The reported maximum capacity permitted for UEFA games (the fourth new value) does not contradict any of the other values being bandied around in this article and is fine. The main issue here IMO is which of those other two new values - 47,405 or 47,805 - is correct? Or perhaps neither of them are and the stadium capacity is still 47,726? Personally I have no confidence in either of those two new numbers (although I just used the 47,805 value in my update to the "Reception" section of the article) because all of the guys that contribute to the match reports on the MCFC OWS (and David Clayton is one of them) frequently and consistently get their details wrong - viz. in almost every match report I read I usually find 3-6 errors (and those are just the ones I'm able to spot) - while the ground capacity statistics reported by the PL are usually different every place I read them - e.g., 47,715 versus 47,405 - and so mindlessly relying on the accuracy of the PL when it comes to such stats. will also lead to Wikialities too. In fact, the PL OWS reported attendance of 47,679 for last season's derby makes complete nonsense of that 47,405 maximum capacity figure reported in this season's PL's Club Directory!

Finally, I have gone ahead and added a new 5th column to the "Average Premier League attendances" table (as explained earlier in this section) on the basis that if the seasonal capacity of the stadium is continually changing - and prior comments by others and the plethora of figures discussed in this section would suggest that it is - then the associated "capacity progession" needs to be documented somewhere in this article, and that table is currently the most convenient place to do it. In the new column I have set the stadium capacity for all seasons prior to the current one to the old 47,726 value, but that figure can be changed to some other value by future editors as long as those editors also supply an RS citation to justify the new number listed for that particular season.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm out of breath reading that dissertation alone. I added the MCFC Aviva Stadium comparison article which listed the capacity as 47,805. I'd be surprised if the club didn't know the capacity of their own stadium. Stevo1000 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It was because that 47,805 value was reliably sourced that I used it in my update to the "Average Premier League attendances" table and retained it in the Infobox whilst deleting the bogus 47,350 value for the reasons given above. It was not because of hyperbolic reasoning such as: "I'd be surprised if the club didn't know the capacity of their own stadium." I'd also be surprised if the club didn't know which of its players are out on loan this season yet the MCFC OWS page that defines the current first team squad showed Cunningham and Nimely, up until a few days ago, as not being out on loan despite the fact that they both have been since the end of August (I guess those long-standing errors finally got fixed when Razak's new loan status was updated). My point being that just because something is displayed on the MCFC OWS doesn't make it true. The reason for my "dissertation" that made you so breathless was to try and invite some upfront discussion here as to what the correct current stadium capacity figure should be (as well as what it has been in prior seasons) rather than invoke an edit war by simply deleting what is currently in the article (but I believe to be wrong), in the same manner that you did WRT the Bradford / Beswick / Sportcity location of CoMS. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 20:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You are aware I was only being light-hearted? No need to come out all defensive and uptight. I'm not the one who added the bogus figure, I actually added the figure from the MCFC Aviva Stadium comparison so don't accuse me of edit warring. Defence over. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm extremely baffled how you managed to completely twist the meaning of my last post into an accusation of edit warring by you. As far as I'm aware you haven't changed or reverted any of my edits so why would I be accusing you of edit warring? In stating that I was seeking discussion here (re the stadium's correct capacity progression) in a manner similar to the earlier discussion of the stadium's location I was, to some extent, paying you a compliment. Nor did I suggest that you added the 47,350 figure; I merely stated that I had removed it based on the reasoning I presented. In fact, in the first version of my posted comment, I only suggested that perhaps it should be removed (and left it in place). It was irrelevant to me who had entered it. My reasons for deleting it now would still be the same even if it turned out it was me who had initially added it. Before you go around accusing others of being "defensive and uptight" perhaps you should first take a long hard look in the mirror.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 03:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Move/Page Title

The stadium is now officially named 'The Etihad Stadium'

With immediate effect --86.176.247.147 (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so the page should be moved to that. Haldraper (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Firstly, it is not the common name of the stadium. Secondly, general practice on Wikipedia is to only use sponsored names when there are no common alternatives (e.g. Emirates Stadium) - this is why we have Brisbane Road rather than the Matchroom Stadium etc. The common name for this stadium is City of Manchester Stadium. If any move were to take place, it should be to Eastlands, which may be even more common than COMC. Number 57 13:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

just (News)Googled the various names for the stadium. It seems that "City of Manchester Stadium" has pretty much dropped out of written use, (as has the acronym form 'CoMS', although I still hear it spoken as much as any other). The most common name is now the official title 'Etihad Stadium', with about three times as many references as 'Eastlands'; though both are still found. The BBC, seems consistently to prefer 'Etihad Stadium'; as do most news outlets.

So we need to change the title; but which too? I would vote (a bit reluctantly) for 'Etihad Stadium (Manchester)'; but more because I have never personally heard 'Eastlands' used other than by non-Mancs. Moreover, the forms 'Eastlands Stadium' or 'The Eastlands" are almost never found; while the form 'Eastlands' appears most often to refer to the team or the area, rather than the stadium intself. TomHennell (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the following sequence of comments, originally posted by myself and TomHennell in the "Requested move" section below, to this similarly themed section because all of the text in them is extraneous to the intended focus of that discussion, which should ONLY contain arguments directly relating to article title policy. None of the moved words below contains any specific reference to Wikipedia article title policy; the text is more in the nature of banter that expounds on our own individual positions on this issue, both of which had already been clearly stated in that section.

The words "passed out of use" are NOT mine at all, they are YOURS! When I used that phrase I was paraphrasing the wording in your initial request to rename at the top of this section; but my paraphrase is actually a direct quote and I have now gone back and indicated that fact in my previous post accordingly. As I stated above, everything you wrote in that initial request was factually wrong or pure hyperbole, and almost everything you have written here since continues in that same vein; such as the assigning of your own words to me in a disingenuous attempt to fool the reader into believing that I am in agreement with you in some way on this matter. You don't appear to have very much respect for the truth.

You also don't seem able to follow the logic of a straightforward argument. It is IRRELEVANT to the title of this article whether the name of the stadium has now "passed out of use" - which it hasn't, but I'll temporarily assume the hypothesis that it has - because the title of this article wasn't originally determined on the basis of the frequency of use of the CoMS name. The stadium name in the article title was chosen because it was, and still is, the official name of the stadium. Plus the only other viable candidates for this article's title were a nickname (Eastlands or Eastlands Stadium) and an acronym (CoMS). The stadium is owned by Manchester city council NOT Manchester City Football Club (who are only tenants) and until Manchester city council announce that the tax payers of Manchester have voted that the stadium must have a new name, "City of Manchester Stadium" will remain the stadium's official name.

If Manchester City Football Club can realize £40 million a year (or whatever the true figure is) by referring to its leased stadium as the "Etihad Stadium" then good luck to it and more power to it, but once the club terminates its lease of the stadium, or if at some point Etihad loses interest in sponsoring City, that temporary "Etihad Stadium" name will disappear ... puff, just like that ... which is why this article's title should not be changed to it. Only the permanent name for the stadium should be used, otherwise we might end up changing the name of this article every few months. It is that desire to avoid the unnecessary churning of article names that is the basis of the Wikipedia guidance WRT renaming articles.

You can trawl Google News all you want but it won't change those basic facts. The official name of the stadium is still "City of Manchester Stadium", ONLY Manchester city council have the power to change that name, and only changing the official name (NOT adding a new name for sponsorship purposes) would constitute a good enough reason to even consider changing the current article name according to Wikipedia guidance on these matters. Your only argument in this issue appears to be an obviously fallacious one - viz. that since the sponsorship name was announced the football reporting media now appear to only be using the new name. Well duh, no shit, Sherlock! That's how sponsorship is meant to work. If the media completely ignored sponsorship names then the sponsoring companies would not spend mega-millions on them. The media is obligated to use the new sponsorship name in preference to all others otherwise sponsorship doesn't work! Thus your only justification for claiming that the CoMS name has "passed out of use" (YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE) is a totally circular self-serving one. NOTHING you have written here supports your proposal for a renaming of this article, and if you had any class or grace you would withdraw your request rather than make an administrator do it after seven days. End of discussion. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. You have beem labouring under the mistaken impression that the stadium itself is still the property of Manchester City Council, and that this gives the City Council continuing rights in respect of the stadium's name. This is not strictly the case. In August 2003 the club exchanged Maine Road for a 250 year leasehold on the City of Manchester Stadium; but this is not an 'operating lease' (where the leaseholder enjoys the use of the asset while ownership remains with the landlord who recovers it at the end of the lease period); but a 'finance lease' (where the leaseholder takes "substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of an asset" and retains the asset at the end of the lease). On this see pages 21 and 27 of the club's annual accounts for the year ending 31st May 2004. Accordingly in those accounts the stadium is shown as a tangible fixed asset of the club, and is not shown as an asset on the counterpart accounts of the City Council. Basically the land on which the stadium was built belongs to the City Council as ground landlord and reverts to them, but the stadium structure that was built on the land now belongs to the Football Club as leaseholder (this is obvious when you think of it, the life of the stadium structure is no more than 100 years, so a complete transfer now of the ownership of the stadium structure is a logical necessity on a lease that will run for two and a half times that period). The case is exactly the same as for St James' Park; except that there the lease is rather shorter (99 years). Both Newcastle and Manchester City football clubs, in law, own the structures of their stadia outright; but do not own outright the land to which those structures are currently attached. There is however a further difference, in that Newcastle United have always also owned the promotional rights to the name of their stadium; while by an explicit term of the orignal lease, the promotional rights to the name of the Commonwealth Stadium were retained by Manchester City Council when they transferred the stadium itself in 2003; which is how they were then able to change that name to 'City of Manchester Stadium' (which name it has retained for the period of this Wikipedia article). My understanding from reports in the press, is that Manchester City Council last year renegotiated the terms of the lease (doubling their rental income in the process), and as part of that renegotiation, surrendered all their promotional rights in the Stadium name to MCFC. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/04/manchester-city-council-stadium-naming-rights?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487) So the official name of the stadium has been changed again to 'Etihad Stadium', and the City Council now can have no further interest in the stadium's promotional rights; although as ground landlord they do retain an interest in the land continuing to be used predominantly for spectator sports, as the lease indeed still requires.

I must now again apologise for having been prolix, so the remainder will try to be more succinct. The official name as such is irrelevant for the purpose of the proposed change to the Wikipedia article; as too is the promotional name, and too the original name, 'Commonwealth Stadium'. Nor strictly is it relevant how the stadium is called by City supporters, or by the man in the street. Wikipedia does not make judgments as to what ought to be the name, or indeed as to what actually is the name. What is only relevent for Wikipedia is how the stadium is currently named in published reliable sources. If you were right that all those sources were somehow constrained to change in line with 'sponsorship' name; then that is what Wikipedia must do too. As it happens, I think you are wrong, and that it is entirely possible that a change in 'sponsorship' name may be ignored by a critical mass of current published reliable sources; and if the pre-sponsor name can indeed be commonly found in current published reliable sources, then on the principle of stability, the article name should stay as it is.

It might then help at this point if you were to identify the current public reliable sources that you can advance as supporting the retention of 'City of Manchester Stadium' as the article name. TomHennell (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I am the one arguing for the retention of the status quo here. The burden of providing proof in support of changing the title of this article lies entirely with you. I do not have to provide proof in support of the article's current title (because it has had that title for almost 8 years now). I merely have to adequately refute any proof you might proffer in support of changing that name.

"You have beem labouring under the mistaken impression that the stadium itself is still the property of Manchester City Council ..." That's hardly a mistaken impression that I'm labouring or even relaxing under. :) To quote from your own supplied Grauniad article source: "Manchester city council still owns the stadium, on which it spent £22m of council tax payers' money to have the running track removed and convert it for City to occupy as tenants after the Commonwealth Games." (My emphasis added.)

"... and that this gives the City Council continuing rights in respect of the stadium's name." To quote from your Grauniad article source once again: "Under the tenancy agreement, the council retained control of naming rights to the stadium, which remains a publicly owned asset." (My emphasis added.)

Those two statements from your own supplied source completely validate what I stated in my previous post whilst also contradicting all that long-winded drivel you just posted about 'finance leases' versus 'operating leases' and MCFC owning the structure of the stadium while the council only retains ownership of the land on which that structure stands. If you had bothered to read your own source material before you made your previous post you could have saved yourself a lot of typing of prolix piffle. It's piffle because you are just making stuff up, that you do not and cannot support with RS citations, simply in order to justify your own goals (namely, an article rename). Even if I agreed with your ends (which I don't) they would still not justify your means.

However, to your credit, the article does go on to establish that the Manchester City council relinquished its control of the stadium's naming rights in the tenancy renegotiations that took place last year in return for a doubling of the £2 million a year it was receiving from the stadium's long-term lease. According to that Guardian article the most recent developments have now rendered parts of what I stated above wrong - viz. "The official name of the stadium is still 'City of Manchester Stadium', ONLY Manchester city council have the power to change that name ..." However, even if the "Etihad Stadium" is now the actual official name of the stadium, rather than just a sponsorship name temporarily overriding the official name, that still does not mean that the title of this article needs to be immediately changed. The principle of stability WRT article renaming still applies here.

Also, you wrote above, "Wikipedia does not make judgments as to what ought to be the name, or indeed as to what actually is the name. What is only relevent for Wikipedia is how the stadium is currently named in published reliable sources." The first sentence of that quote I obviously agree with since I myself had already eatablished that point earlier in this discussion, but the second sentence that you appended to it represents more of your invented piffle. Wikipedia guidance states that article names are determined by editor consensus and NOT by any one or other of the factors WRT the stadium name - such as most official v most current v most common v most popular v most historically accurate, etc., all of which should be considered in arriving at that consensus - automatically trumping any of the others. It is entirely possible that a stadium name may meet all of those factors and still not be chosen as the article title, and one such valid reason for not choosing the stadium name that is the most popular, common, official, etc. would be the primacy given to a more long-standing and stable article name. Also your suggested new name for the article still falls short of the current name due to the WP:PRECISE guidance quoted earlier. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Plus this additional comment:

Article titles - when they become a point of contention - are determined by editor consensus. In achieving that consensus the discussion must focus ONLY on which of the many pieces of WP article title policy/guidance best applies in that particular article's situation. For instance, in the case of articles about stadia, the various factors that get discussed - such as the official name, the cuurent name, the most common name, the most popular name (not necessarily the same as the most common name; e.g., "Theatre of Dreams" might actually be more popular than the more common "Old Trafford"), the historically correct name, the sponsor's preferred name, etc., etc. - should only be discussed WRT to how that name best serves the various (and sometimes conflicting) WP article title policy guidance in ultimately determining the article name.

You have made a good case already for the fact that CoMS may no longer be the stadium's official name nor its current name. But it is still a common name and a popular name and it has legacy and stability. Proving that a particular name is no longer as common as it was, or is not as official as was first thought, doesn't guarantee an article title change "slam dunk". It only changes one (or more) of the factors that have to be weighed for that particular stadium name. Ultimate recourse as to what the article title should be is still determined by more abstract, and possibly more abstruse, factors such as stability, precision / (lack of) ambiguity, simplicity, conciseness / pithiness, recognizability, naturalness, consistency, popularity (meaning how popular that name is as an article name, not how popular it is as a stadium name - once again, there's a difference), and so on. Remember: "debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia."

Counting the number of current web-published occurrences of both "CoMS" (acronym or "Sunday best") and "Etihad Stadium" in any given period of time is going to get you nowhere - particularly when YOU (reflecting your own bias) arbitrarily determine what counts and what doesn't count! What exactly does it prove? How does it capture, for instance, the way folk who live in Ardwick or West Gorton, who don't have a PC and have never heard of Wikipedia, refer to the stadium on their doorstep? Surely the locals of any community determine the common names of their own landmark buildings (particularly when its not the official name) and it's up to strangers / foreigners - and Wikipedia! - to respect those names, whether they get continually used on the internet or not.

Don't you think it's a bit arrogant of you to sit at your PC "trawling" for name occurrences (using methods only known to you) and then based on your results come here and demand article name changes based on those results? At best, your results do no more than support your argument that the commonality of use of the two names in question is changing ... and that point was acknowledged way back in this discussion. You are now beating a dead horse. The issue now is to identify / determine some widely acknowledged event that will cause an article name change consensus (which you don't have right now) to occur. Such as all the signposting to the stadium in Greater Manchester being changed to say "Etihad Stadium" instead of "SportCity" or "CoMS". IMO that would determine that a real substantive change of name for the stadium from a social or community perspective has finally occurred and that it might now be necessary to change the name of this article. But note that I said "might" there ... because that is just my POV and any such name change would require consensus. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

No consensus to move

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: No consensus to move to new name at this time Mike Cline (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC) City of Manchester Stadium → Etihad Stadium (Manchester) – As discussed above. The name 'City of Manchester Stadium' has passed out of use. The common name of the stadium is now 'Etihad Stadium'; and no other name has widespread currency. The concocted name 'Eastlands' has been suggested by some editors, and is indeed used by some press commentators, but aside from the fact that it is much less widely found in authoritative sources, it refers to the whole area (originally known as 'Bradford') and not specifically to the stadium. . TomHennell (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. If you neither support nor oppose the issue but wish instead to add an ambivalent comment on this topic then please preface such remarks with *'''Comment'''. Oppose – The suggested article rename and move clearly violates WP:TITLECHANGES guidance which states: "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." (My emphasis added.) The stadium's article name has ALWAYS been the current one since this article was first created on 24 March 2004, which makes the current article name about as stable as one can get! The reason for this stability is that the current article name has always matched the official name of the stadium which also matches the most common way people refer to the stadium (viz. CoMS, which is simply an abbreviated acronym for that name) other than perhaps by its more colloquial "Eastlands" name. The other piece of Wikipedia guidance that I believe applies here is WP:PRECISE which states: "If the subject of an article is the primary (or only) topic to which a term refers, then that term can be the title of that article without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies." If CoMS was the ONLY stadium called "Etihad Stadium" then that could indeed be the name that is used as the title for this article. But unfortunately (for the person requesting the move) there is another "Etihad Stadium" (and there may possibly be others in the future) which he acknowledges by applying parenthetical disambiguation to his suggested rename to produce "Etihad Stadium (Manchester)". But WP:PRECISE also states: "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose a different, alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title (do not, however, use obscure or made up names)." (My emphasis added.) Is there such an alternative name? Yes ... it's the current article name, and WP:PRECISE specifically states that parenthetical disambiguation should only be used if natural disambiguation is not possible. Given the stability and unanimity regarding the current aticle name, anyone making a request to change it MUST provide a good reason for doing so (as per the quoted guidance above) which the current requester has failed to do. Adding a new name for the purposes of sponsorship has NOT changed the official name of the stadium NOR has the new name gained widespread currency with the man in the street, neither in the form of the "Etihad Stadium" and most certainly not as the "Etihad Stadium (Manchester)", which is the new article name being proposed here. The suggested new name for the article simply introduces ambiguity (WRT the other Etihad Stadium in Melbourne, Australia) into the article title where currently none exists, which would be a retrograde step. Finally, Wikipedia is meant to be a content-neutral encyclopedia and, as such, it does not promote advertising and sponsorship. If the "Etihad Stadium" was the ONLY recognised name for this stadium, such that there was no other viable way of referring to it, then it would indeed be acceptable to use that name as the title of this article (cf. the Reebok Stadium or the DW Stadium). However, given the widespread currency and stability of the current article name, introducing such unnecessary references to sponsorship into the encyclopedia article namespace violates such content-neutral goals. The normal course of action in these situations is to add the sponsorship name as a "redirect link" to the current article, NOT to change the current content-neutral name to the sponsorship name (cf. "Barclays Premier League" which redirects to just "Premier League" or "Carling Cup" which redirects to "Football League Cup"). Also, UEFA does not recognize the new sponsorship name for the stadium and continues to refer to the stadium only by its official CoMS name. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 21:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC) thanks for your contribution; the key point here is that the current article name "City of Manchester Stadium" does now appear from a trawl of current usage in news media to have dropped out of use, now that it has ceased to be the official name. The exception, as you note is UEFA; but I suggest that simply reflects their own sponsorship policy of avoiding mention of other sponsors' names; even when no other stadium name exists (hence UEFA alone refer to the Emirates Stadium as the 'Arsenal Stadium' which is not only inappropriate but wrong, the Arsenal Stadium is, and always has been Highbury). I am particularly interested at your statement that "introducing such unnecessary references to sponsorship into the encyclopedia article namespace violates such content-neutral goals", as I have not yet found that in any of the Wikipedia policies; it would help if you could direct me to the source you are quoting from. I would have drawn the opposite conclusion from the guidance I have read; that to be 'content neutral' in accordance with Wikipedia polcies should requires editors to avoid prejudice either against or in favour of sponsored, commercial or promotional names. After all, 'City of Manchester Stadium' is itself originally a promotional name, as a renaming of the former 'Commonwealth Games Stadium'. I note that Wikipedia no longer has article titles for GMEX, the Nynex Arena, or the Alfred McAlpine Stadium; all such promotional names are inherently transitory, and 'City or Manchester Stadium' cannot be an exception. I am taking you to imply that; where the most common name is promotional; Wikipedia should revert to a less common non-promotional name. On the face of it, that would appear to be 'content-biased' rather than 'content neutral'. Clearly, once a former name is no longer in the common name, the corresponding Wikipedia article should change its title. The question is, what criteria should be applied for this; does the Etihad Stadium yet fulfull them; and if not now, when? TomHennell (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC) The key point here is that there is long-standing Wikipedia guidance in place WRT the renaming of articles (WP:TITLECHANGES) that supports my stance on this issue and which invalidates your own position. Unless you can come up with some similar Wikipedia guidance that might seriously challenge what I previously quoted then everything you just wrote is merely rhetoric ... interesting rhetoric for a healthy discussion down the pub on a Sunday afternoon perhaps, but not sufficient to meet the criteria for changing the name of this article. Many sports stadia are known or referred to by more than one name, but only one of those multiple names can be used as a Wikipedia article title. Whichever one is chosen, all the other valid ways of referring to a multi-name stadium should get equal mention in its article's lead-in text and have "redirect links" put in place for them. Wikipedia guidance does NOT categorically specify which one of a possible plethora of names takes precedence in the choice of stadium name to be used as the corresponding article title - such as the most historically correct name (e.g., the Boleyn Ground or Arsenal Stadium) versus the most popular name (e.g., Upton Park or Highbury) versus the official name (e.g. Ashburton Grove) versus a sponsor's preferred name (e.g., Emirates Stadium) versus the most current name (e.g., Etihad Stadium) versus the most common name (e.g., Eastlands) versus the most romantic name (e.g., Theatre of dreams). The guidance only states that a stable article name should NOT be displaced by any one of the others without a good reason. You have not presented any such good reason - everything you stated in your initial request to rename is factually wrong or pure hyperbole. The name 'City of Manchester Stadium' has NOT "passed out of use" - that claim by you is factually incorrect. "The common name of the stadium" is NOT now 'Etihad Stadium' - that is also factually incorrect and absolute piffle, as is your statement that "no other name has widespread currency". If the common name of the stadium was to be chosen as this article's title it would either be 'Eastlands' or 'CoMS' (and since the use of acronyms as article titles is frowned upon, that just leaves 'Eastlands' as a possible "common name" title). If 'Etihad Stadium' is used as the stadium's name for the next 8 years then that situation may change and we can have this discussion then, but simply announcing a new sponsorship deal has not changed overnight the way everyone refers to the stadium. Also note that 'Eastlands' is NOT a "concocted name" for the stadium as you falsely claim; there are strong historical reasons behind the use of that name. And although, as you correctly claim, it does indeed "refer to the whole area" on which the SportCity complex was developed, it ALSO specifically refers to the stadium due to common usage (in the same manner that Old Trafford refers to both the stadium itself as well ss its surrounding location, from which the stadium originally took its name), so once again what you wrote is completely specious. Finally, the statement you made in your previous comment that "'City of Manchester Stadium' is itself originally a promotional name, as a renaming of the former 'Commonwealth Games Stadium', is also factually incorrect. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 22:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your clarification; I suspect that underneath your florid over-epression, we are actually agreed to a substantial degree. I suggest that these agreements comprise; that the title of the article has been stable ever since it originated, and that it should not be changed without good reason, that the announcement of a new sponsorship name is not in itself a good reason, that the most common name for the stadium amongst supporters is and remains 'CoMS', that nevertheless, 'CoMS' cannot be the title of the article - both because it is an acronym; and also I suggest, because its usage is a fellowship 'token' amongst such supporters; and is not generally current in wider discourse and is rarely found in such published sources, that it would be a good reason to change the article title from 'City of Manchester Stadium'; if it was clearly apparent that this name had passed out of use as a reference to the current stadium in common discourse. There are additional points on which I think we are agreed; but would be happy to be corrected; that Wikipedia guidance does not advise editors either to prefer, or to avoid, promotional or sponsored names in article titles. I am aware that a number of editors do have strong personal feelings on this point, but the Wikipedia principle of 'content neutrality' is not to be invoked as implying a general bias against promotional names on principle. that specifically in respect this article, there would come a time when the name 'Etihad Stadium', if it were to be observed consistently in published use as over a period in the continued absence of an alternative common name, ought to become the article title. The points on which we disagree may I think then be suggested as; whether the name 'City of Manchester Stadium' has indeed passed out of current use. I rule out of consideration in this respect the eccentric stadium designations applied by UEFA and FIFA, both because these are not reputable sources (for obvious reasons) and because they derive from their own sponsoship policies. But otherwise, which reputable sources continue to use the full form 'City of Manchester Stadium'? if we are agreed on the principle that changing the article title to 'Etihad Stadium' might become appropriate through a period of use, we disagree on the tarrif; you refer to eight years, my view is that a realistic period would be more like eight weeks, we seem (surprisingly) to disagree on the status of 'Eastlands' as a name; although I think we agree that its primary reference is to the area of the former Bradford Pit, and only by extension to the stadium built on the site. It may be invalid as personal research, but I was present at several Urbab Regeneration Partnership meetings, at which the renaming of Bradford as 'Eastlands' for the promotional reasons was discussed. Again, can you find recent published usage in which 'Eastlands' clearly identifies the stadium? we also seem to disagree as to whether the stadium was originally named the 'Commonwealth Stadium', and only subsequently changed to 'City of Manchester Stadium'. Fortunately, this point is easily resolved. I refer you to 'Cathedrals of Sport: Football Stadia in Contemporary England' by Roger Penn and Paul Dolby (Lancaster University 2005). They remark in passing; "Manchester City moved from Maine Road – an old stadium blighted with poor views – to the Commonwealth Stadium (now renamed the City of Manchester Stadium) in 2003." Do you have a web reference or two to back up this statement rather than a book I don't own? My own current understanding is that the stadium name was only ever changed from "Eastlands" (which is what folk called the "proposed stadium" unofficially before it was given an official name) to "CoMS", not "Eastlands" to "Commonwealth Stadium" to "CoMS". The stadium may have been generically referred to as the Commonwealth Games stadium before MCFC became tenants, but that is not the same thing at all, and I don't think that is what you are claiming. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 11:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Update - read this cited RS in the article (currently [5], but that may change). The stadium was already called CoMS in December 1999 when Tony Blair laid the foundation stone. It was NOT renamed to CoMS after MCFC moved to it in 2003. Once again, you're talking absolute tosh! Despite all of your chatter about reliable sources, you wouldn't recognise a reliable source if one poked you in the eye! :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 09:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC) It would appear to me that most of our points of differnce are matters of fact. I would welcome your response, in the form of recent quantified and dated references from reputable published sources. TomHennell (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC) The only points that we agree or disagree on which matter here are "that the title of the article has been stable ever since it originated, and that it should not be changed without good reason" and "that the announcement of a new sponsorship name is not in itself a good reason". Since you have just admitted that we are in agreement on both those points and you have not provided any other good reason to rename this article, this discussion is now at an end. From the "Requested move" template at the beginning of this section: "Remember to base arguments on article title policy, and to keep discussion succinct and civil." (My emphasis added.) The comments you just posted were once again merely rhetorical; you have not raised any new issues with respect to article title policy nor was your discussion very succinct. I am quite happy to respond to any of the points you just raised in a new general discussion section on this page, but not here under this article renaming section where the discussion must focus only on article title policy. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 06:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC) My apolgies for prolixity, I will be succinct. In addition to the two points you raise, I am sure we are agreed on a further point; that it would be a good reason to change the article title from 'City of Manchester Stadium'; if it was clearly apparent that this name had passed out of use as a reference to the current stadium in common discourse in published Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The words passed out of use are yours, so I am confident you will be happy with the principle. But has the current article title passed out of use? Trawling with Google News gives 58 hits on the term 'City of Manchester Stadium'. The majority of these are references to the name change (chiefly in the context of the counterpart proposals at Newcastle). These clearly cannot count as counter-examples; as nor can the bulk of the rest, which are clearly referring to events in the past when the old name was current. If we then exclude non-published sources (blogs etc); I can find only two current published references applying the former name: one in the Montreal Gazzette for 30th October, and one in the Fulham Chronicle for 4th November. Neither of these would on the face of it be considered a reliable source for this matter by Wikipedia standards. By comparison, a trawl on 'Etihad Stadium'+Manchester gives 1190 hits (including most of those found in the previous trawl). This includes all those that would be considered Wikipedia:Reliable sources; (BBC, Sky Sports News, The Guardian, etc) To me this is definitive; is it for you? TomHennell (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC) NOTE: I have moved the remainder of these exchanges to the previous section for the reasons stated there. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 21:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose - reading the story so far and doing a quick search of the internet - I would suggest leaving as is for the time being. Sponsorship names are not permanent, (nothing is...) and common usage still seems to be the currant title from my search results, Eastlands is also in the results - messy, changing the name of stadiums - St James' Park was disputed for months and months, still is I imagine. - St James' Park, known for sponsorship reasons as the Sports Direct Arena, - Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Although you feel there may be a case to rename the article some time in the future your statement that you feel it should be left "as is for the time being" is really a vote to Oppose the immediate renaming/moving of this article - which is what is being discussed here. Please consider relabelling the current neutral tag on your comment as per the guidance I've added at the top of this section. Thanks. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 03:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC) As per Harry's nudge and a reread of additional comments here , although I only made a comment, to clarify, I am opposed to a move/name change at this time. I will keep checking back to see if there are any major updates to the discussion, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Based on your above post I went ahead and changed your "comment" tag to "Oppose". Thanks for the clarification. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 12:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC) thank you for that, and most helpful. Could you expand on your statement "common usage still seems to be the currant title from my search results", with specifics; which publications, when published, are they reliable? TomHennell (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC) There is NO Wikipedia guidance WRT naming articles that states that articles about entities that have multiple names MUST be titled in accordance with the entity name that has the most occurrences in reliable sources ... so why do you keep beating this dead horse? Even if the above poster were to do you the courtesy of taking the time and trouble to respond your above queries it wouldn't mean anything. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC) thank you for your remarks there MLH; I was perhaps being a little too succinct. I agree that contentious issues are not decided in Wikipedia simply by 'counting noses'. It is a sound intellectual precept that sources are to be weighed, not counted; and Wikipedia follows that principle. So sources need to be evaluated; and those that are most reliable given priority. Nevertheless it remains the fundamental objective of Wikipedia to provide a faithful record of what is currently published on a subject in reliable sources. So nothing should be included in a Wikipedia article - including its title - that does not have a source in a reliable publication. I originally raised the issue of the title of this article because I have been unable to find the name 'City of Manchester Stadium' in common use in reliable published sources referring to the current 2011/12 season. If Off2riorob is finding different results, then the matter 'for the time being' is as s/he says, resolved. Maybe we can agree as to which publications are to be considered reliable sources for the name of the Stadium (and hence the article title); and that so long as any of those continue to prefer the form 'City of Manchester Stadium', then the article title will remain as it is? But if and when all reliable sources cease to use that form; then the article title must perforce change (without prejudice as to what the new name should be, other than that it should be one of those then current in the reliable published sources). This question is likely to recur at frequent intervals, and we need a sounder basis for answering it than "the title is what it has always been". Does this help? TomHennell (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Take a look at the article. The 5 alternative names for the stadium presented in the lead-in paragraph are based on 6 source citations ... [1]-[4] and [13]-[14]. The sources behind those 6 citations are as follows: [1] and [4] - BBC; [2] MCFC OWS; [3] MEN; [13] The Telegraph; and [14] The Guardian. Reliable enough for you? Or is your idea of reliable "goal.com" or "tribalfootball.com"? I fully agree that this question is likely to recur at frequent intervals; and should - nothing is permanent. However, one cannot keep changing the article name willy-nilly. There is Wikipedia precedence set for all of this. Newcastle's stadium article is still titled "St James' Park" and they've been going backwards and forwards with this issue for a much longer time. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 09:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you MLH, I think we may now be approaching agreement on the key points at issue. I fully agree that all those souces cited in the current article are reliable sources for the stadium name; and also with you exclusion of "goal.com" and "tribalfootball.com" or equivalents. Of course that list of published sources is not exclusive; but any that are quoted in their place should have an equivalent status and be similarly recognised as reliable on this matter. So long as any of these sources continue to apply the name 'City of Manchester Stadium'; then I see no reason to change the title of the article. I would suggest three points of clarification to that statement: firstly, neither UEFA nor FIFA are reliable sources for stadium names. Both organisations grant privileges to their commercial partners that include not using common names sponsored by non-partners; with the consequence in such artificially constructed names as; 'FIFA World Cup Stadium Munich' and 'Fußball Arena München' for the 'Allianz Arena'. That also rules out foreign language sources which reprint FIFA or UEFA published reports, secondly, to be reliable, the text must be presented in published form; which excludes blogs, minute-by-minute reports and reader message boards hosted by the source, thirdly, sources that directly refer to the change of name do not count in establishing the currency of both names; hence a statement "formerly known as 'City of Manchester Stadium'" does not support that as a current common name, as nor do sources that use the historic name to recall events in past seasons. But your reference back to the cited sources in the article also highlight the reason for my concern. As I read them, the sources (1,2,3,14) that support 'City of Manchester Stadium' pre-date the current season and the purchase and sale by MCFC of promotional rights in the stadium name. The sources that refer to the current season (4,13) support a different name - the Telegraph report especially in this context. What is needed is an additional citation, published in these or equivalent reliable sources referring to the 'City of Manchester Stadium' in the current season. If we can find any such good reference (maybe Off2riorob has one), I fully agree that the name should stay as it is for the current year. TomHennell (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Which part of "Remember to base arguments on article title policy" do you not understand? My arguments are based on pertinent article title policy - viz. WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:PRECISE. Yours are not based on ANY article title policy. This section is not meant to be a general forum where everybody gets to sound off their opinion on what they think the article title should be - use the previous section for that. I've tried to show you the way by moving some of my own extraneous text there. There's a lot more text I would like to move but most of it has been generated in response to your own OT text and I can't move it until you move yours. In all the words you have written here you have referenced WP guidance only once (viz. WP:COMMONNAME) and that was in your original "Request to move"! I'm not trying to censor your POV; I'm only stating that it doesn't belong in this section as per the guidance in the big brown box at the top of it. Please move all your extraneous POV text to the previous one and only leave text here that specifically identifies pertinent WP article title policy and expounds on why it applies in the case of this article's title. For example, everything you just wrote above is purely your own POV and cannot be supported with WP article title policy. That criticism also applies to much of what you've posted in this section. In that same spirit I'm going to post the rest of my response to you in the section above. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 23:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Also, should a decision be made to change the name of the article in the future, WP:PRECISE dictates that, as things stand, the new name would NOT be your suggested name because that guidance clearly states that natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. If and when the current article name is ever deemed to be a former name (rather than a current one) for the stadium, that same rationale will also rule out the acronym CoMS as an option for a new name too - which would leave a choice between "Etihad Stadium" (the current and official name), "Eastlands" (a common name with a long legacy), and "SportCity" for the new article name. "SportCity" has little legacy and requires disambiguation to distinguish it from the sports complex (to which it really applies) so that name is ruled out. If there was only one "Etihad Stadium" the choice of a new name article would be straightforward and obvious, but since any article title using that name must be disambiguated, WP:PRECISE pretty well dictates that a name providing natural disambiguation - such as the current one (despite it now being old hat) or "Eastlands" - should be chosen in preference to one providing parenthetical disambiguation such as "Etihad Stadium (Manchester)". Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC) See above, there is no need to discuss alternative names if we can find a current reliable published souce for the current one. TomHennell (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC) FYI, there are plenty of contemporaneously published reliable souces for the current article name. It may well turn out that you are not doing your "trawling" thoroughly enough. Or perhaps you are finding those same sources too but are just ignoring them because they don't suit your agenda. Also, are you aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia NOT a news service? Because you don't appear to understand the difference between the two concepts. There is no policy that states that Wikipedia has to track the names of topics covered in it by the week or by the month. As it happens, the new sponsored name for the stadium was added to the article within days (if not hours!) of it being publicly announced and the article currently reflects all of the names by which it is commonly known, and anyone searching for "Etihad Stadium" on the web can immediately find this article because the new name is properly disambiguated and linked to it. Wikipedia does not require any more than that. There is NO Wikipedia policy that states that article content must reflect information contained in news items within a specific timeframe, let alone that article names should reflect such information within a specific timeframe. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 06:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose. The renaming of the article is at least premature, as the official renaming took place just last July. However some updating of the article would be good to better present this information. The current official name and the date of renaming should IMO both be stated in the lead, and the official name should be more prominent in the infobox as well. Revisit in another six months; If the sponsorship deal lasts ten years as planned, and if Etihad Airways (which has at this point existed for less than ten years) remains independent and trading by that name, then it's entirely possible that a rename will be appropriate in the future. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC) I fully concur. I've gone ahead and added a new paragraph to the lead-in text and rolled the names over in the Infobox, which is something I've been wanting to do for awhile. Hopefully this will not initiate a new round of repeated changes to the text like those that occurred back in July and August. If it does, perhaps we should get the article semi-protected like the main MCFC article, because those sort of edits are frequently initiated by people via anonymous IP addresses. I think having the lead-in text still refer to the City of Manchester Stadium as its main/official name but also mentioning that its now called Etihad Stadium, while similarly having the Infobox display the stadium's current name as being the Etihad Stadium with City of Manchester Stadium clearly indicated as a former name, quite nicely captures the state of flux it is currently in, with people referring to it by all of its names - new, old, and unofficial. And that situation is going to last for quite awhile IMO. It's always been a stadium with multiple names - one official plus three popular but unofficial names (if you treat CoMS as a name by itself rather than just an acronym for the official name). So right now the stadium has five commonly used names where previously it only had four. If the "Etihad" name finally finds traction due to the longevity of both the sponsorship arrangement and its sponsor, then not only will we be able to finally retire the stadium's "Sunday best" name (and rename the article accordingly) but some of the common alternatives for it may also disappear from use, such as "CoMS" and "SportCity". "Eastlands" may well linger on for the same perverse reasons it is still in common usage today. The future of "SportCity" will depend very much on how much that facility is featured within the overall "Etihad Campus" scheme as well as on how the stadium and current sports complex are signposted on all the road signs once the campus starts to become a reality. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 01:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose Names and sponsors have a habit of changing but the City of Manchester Stadium is in frequent common usage as are the other locality names. Terms the fans use are not always easily referenced.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2011 (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.

Names

The name is discussed in the lead, there is no need to refer to it in the next paragraph.--Esemgee (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but so is the info. in the "Background" section; two paragraphs worth versus just the one for the names. The second paragraph of text in the "Names" section used to be in lead-in until it was moved into its own section immediately below because the lead-in was getting too long. So all I just did was put the "Names" section back where it used to be. Also, open up the "Requested move" section above and see the third set of "Oppose" comments - vote by Andrewa and my response to him. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 14:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is SportCity really a common stadium name?

Does any City fan say they're going to SportCity when they go to a home match? The claim that the ground itself is called that rather than the entire complex (running track, indoor courts etc) seems to be based on an aside from a MEN journalist in a article five years ago. Unlike CoMs/Eastlands and now the Etihad Stadium, I've never seen or heard the ground referred to as that in the media. Haldraper (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that Chris Bailey - who also currently works for the media side of MCFC as well as MEN, but whether he did back when he wrote that for MEN I cannot say - got 3 out of the 4 names right, but then just decided to make up the fourth name for fun? That was not an aside comment; the quoted MEN statement was a somewhat carefully considered opinion. I personally don't refer to the stadium as SportCity ... but then again I have also yet to refer to it as the Etihad Stadium! If you can prove that no one refers to it as SportCity please go ahead and post your RS citations here and we'll remove that name. BTW, I do realize I have just asked you to prove a negative - always a difficult proposition! OTOH, your claim that YOU personally have never heard anyone refer to the stadium as SportCity is just YOUR POV and cannot be used to override a published statement. If it helps you any, I too have never heard anyone refer to CoMS as SportCity ... but I also know that I cannot force my own experience/POV on the article, which is meant to be objective and reflect the truth (which extends beyond my own experience). Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 07:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, your issue with the SportCity name still doesn't justify removing the Eastlands and CoMS names from the Infobox. If you agree they are common "nicknames" for the stadium how can you possibly justify that part of your recent edit? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 07:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I obviously can't prove a negative and it would be original research to base my claim that the ground itself (as opposed to the sports complex) isn't referred to as SportCity on what I have/haven't seen or heard. Nevertheless, the claim that the ground is commonly referred to as SportCity seems to be based on shaky ground: when it comes to CoMS, Eastlands or the Etihad, we could cite dozens of match reports - as well as official statements by the club, council and UEFA - using those names for the ground. I'm not sure you could find a match report that starts "In yesterday's match at SportCity, Manchester City..".

The infobox edit was just for tidiness, not that bothered about it being reverted. Haldraper (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, IMO it's much tidier if the Infobox reflects reality. :) The only issue here is whether anyone actually refers to the stadium as SportCity, and you do raise a valid issue. However, unless you can prove that CB either knowingly or accidentally made his 4-names assessment incorrectly, what are we meant to do? To remove any reference to the "SportCity" name simply because you or I haven't personally heard others use it would only be a case of our abusing the fact that we happen to feel comfortable editing the article in order to push our own POV. That is contrary to how Wikipedia is meant to work. In a situation such as this, one has to rely on reliable published sources. CB is a proven reliable source, although he is also human and not infallible, and can therefore make mistakes. OTOH, your own recent actions of removing information from the Infobox that you have also admitted to believing to be true "just for tidiness" sake looks an awful lot like someone trying to thrust his own POV on the article. Given a choice here, I'm afraid my vote goes for Chris Bailey ... and I'm sure most other editors' votes would too. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 08:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

When you say "reliable published sources", you actually mean "source". I do think it's instructive that it stands alone against the mountain of reliable sources for the other names. I'll add a discuss tag so other editors can chip in here. Haldraper (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No I don't. Would you like me to add this link as a source to the article? The reason people refer to the stadium as SportCity (if they do) is because many of the routes to it in the Greater Manchester area are signposted that way. If, as a City fan, I decide I want to follow my team to Newcastle to support them in their away fixture there and, whether I go by train or drive by car to get there, if once I arrive in Newcastle all of the signs directing fans to the ground say St. James' Park then guess what? When I get home again after the game and folk ask me where I was on Saturday I reply, "I was doing the Poznan in St. James' Park." Because that is all I know. Only geeks that never leave home and spend all their existence on the internet will ever refer to Newcastle's ground as the Sports Direct Arena.

Similarly, only people that read Phil McNulty's blogs and match reports refer to City's ground as Eastlands, while most City fans that actually go to the home games - or, if not, still regularly access the MCFC OWS and related fanzine sites - will refer to it as CoMS (because that is how it is usually referred to by those entities). However, there is a third group of people - i.e., visiting fans - that will refer to it as SportCity when asked what they were doing at the weekend. Because that is all they know.

Also, a little old lady that lives in Openshaw and who has never used a PC in her life and who never reads sports journals or newspapers, but whose home is next to a big sign saying, "this way for SportCity", is similarly very likely to refer to the ground in that manner when her 80-year old friend asks her where all those people walking past her window are headed. Because that is all she knows. Are you getting this yet? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 09:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[7]Any good?J3Mrs (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, gee, thanks. That linked RS is so much clearer than the one I posted in my previous message as "this link"! :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 10:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It matters not one bit what you think away fans, home fans or little old ladies in Openshaw refer to the stadium as because they all come under the heading of original research. What we need is reliable sources referring to the stadium (not the whole complex) as SportCity. On which point, the link J3Mrs posted actually backs up what I'm saying as it says: "Sportcity is the largest concentration of sporting venues...". SportCity is the whole sporting complex, not the stadium. Are you getting this yet? Haldraper (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree the ref doesn't give the stadium any other name than Sportcity.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you need to look at the site map on the SportCity website you linked to then which shows the City of Manchester Stadium, Regional Athletics Arena and National Squash Centre among the venues there. Haldraper (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, I posted the link ... J3Mrs only re-posted it. The link is to a site with multiple pages, but the page that I chose is a picture of the stadium with the caption "WELCOME TO SPORTCITY" underneath it. That is a reliable published source that supports, either rightly or wrongly, that the stadium can be referred to as SportCity. Eastlands is the name of the site on which SportCity was developed and is NOT the name of the stadium, yet you obviously accept that people use that term WRONGLY to refer to both the stadium and the surrounding complex. The term Eastlands should have disappeared from common usage as soon as the name SportCity was created for the developed location, yet it has lingered on. Your argument that SportCity is not a name in common use for the stadium simply because it would be the wrong use of that name simply does not hold water ... and is also highly hypocritical given that you yourself accept and wrongly use the term Eastlands to refer to the stadium.

So far I have produced two RS citations (one in the article and the one pointed to by this link above) that support including SportCity listed as one of the common use names for the stadium. In return, you have produced nothing to counter that other than your own stated POV. I'm sorry that the article does not agree with your POV, but POV is all it is. If you change the article to what you just changed it to without first getting consensus here to do so, then the article will conflict with other people's POV - such as J3Mrs and mine. So why are you so damn arrogant to believe your POV is the only correct one? Please do not revert that area of the article again unless you can support your argument on this Talk Page with at least 3 reliable RS citations to trump the 2 we already have supporting the status quo. Simply being boorish about violating WP:DE WRT this issue will get you nowhere.

FYI, I don't claim that my argument in my previous post proves my side of this dispute; I was merely trying to show you how the stadium might be referred as SportCity despite your own experience to the contrary. The onus is now on you to prove that Chris Bailey, who wrote a very reasonable and objective article on the topic of why MCFC should cash in on the sponsorship opportunity of renaming the stadium, deliberately decided to throw in a completely bogus name for it. You have stated above that in your POV the name SportCity "seems to be based on shaky ground". So where is your proof to back that claim up?
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 11:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Why you want to have a name that you say people use wrongly to refer to the stadium as opposed to the complex it's part of in the lead and infobox is beyond me. The map I just posted is crystal clear as to the venues that make up SportCity, including the CoMS. Incidentally, I always refer to it as the City of Manchester Stadium (its official name) rather than the meaningless Eastlands.

The onus is not on me to respond to your straw man argument about a MEN journalist; the onus is on you to provide a reliable source that shows or refers to the stadium itself, rather than the complex it forms part of, as SportCity. Haldraper (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of what I personally want or don't want. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that attempts to build its articles based on verifiable facts found in reliable secondary sources. The situation WRT SportCity being a common name for the stadium is as follows:

(1) It is supported by an article in a newspaper (MEN) that you have already agreed in this discussion is a reliable secondary source and which was written by a MEN journalist (Chris Bailey) that is also considered to be a reliable author on all matters MCFC-related (viz. he is used at least 3 times as a cited source of information used in this article - or at least he was until you started removing those cited RS in violation of Wikipedia policy).

(2) You have challenged this "fact" based on your own infallible knowledge (cf.WP:KNOW) that this is wrong yet you have failed to provide any kind of source - primary, secondary or tertiary - to support your own POV, which is all you are pushing here in clear violation of WP:NPOV.

I have also let you know that I will support your suggested change(s) to the article if you can come up with a single good RS to support it(them) despite the fact that we would really only have a stand-off situation with one RS supporting inclusion and one RS supporting exclusion of that name. I have even spent quite a bit of my own time searching for such an RS but to no avail. In fact, all I found were more sources that were in some ways supportive of the status quo rather than negating it. Until such an RS is found you are violating all three core policies WRT Wikipedia content (i.e., WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR) in trying to remove the name SportCity from the article. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 06:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is how I see it. City of Manchester Stadium? Yes. Etihad Stadium or 'The Etihad'? Yes. Eastlands? Yes. CoMS? Somewhat common. Sportcity? I've honestly never heard of anyone who has referred to the stadium as Sportcity. The location, yes - but stadium name? No. I'd personally wouldn't put it in the article. Stevo1000 (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. But what you just posted is a personal opinion. It's Steve's POV. It begins, "This is how I see it." You know as well as I do that in these sort of discussions what is required is supporting evidence that backs up your stated POV. And the normal means for that is a reference to a published RS that effectively says the same thing (within reason) as your posted POV. You haven't provided that. FYI, your POV is somewhat similar to mine. But Wikipedia doesn't care about your or my POV. Wikipedia is NOT a message board wishing to invoke stimulating discussion between all POVs. It is an encyclopedia that only seeks statements that can be supported by published sources, and where there is a conflict between such sources leading to potentially conflicting encyclopedia statements, there are only two options:

(1) We have to first rate the relative reliability of the conflicting sources, and if there is a consensus that the source(s) supporting statement A is (are) significantly more reliable than the source(s) supporting statement B, then the encyclopedia article has to reject statement B in favour of statement A.

(2) If a consensus cannot be reached that chooses A over B because both sets of sources are considered to be equally reliable (or unreliable) then the encyclopedia article has to give equal, or appropriately proportional, weight to both A and B.

The situation we have here is that we have a statement from a many-times-over proven reliable source - Chris Bailey - writing for a newspaper - the Manchester Evening News - that is also a many-times-over proven reliable source when it comes to matters relating to MCFC. His statement is as follows: "Some call it 'Eastlands', an area that doesn't officially exist on maps, some who like expending their breath call it by its Sunday best name 'City of Manchester Stadium', others prefer to shorten that to 'COMS' while still more refer to City's stronghold as 'Sportcity' in keeping with those nice brown signs that help everyone find their way to the complex." Let's call that reliably sourced statement A (RS A).

In all of the foregoing discussion in this section, neither you nor Haldraper have proffered a conflicting RS B that contradicts RS A. You have both ONLY proffered your own personal POVs - which carry absolutely no weight with Wikipedia. We are not even in a position yet where we have to execute step (1) above, let alone move on to step (2). Until either of you can come up with that first RS B that throws RS A into some kind of doubt then there is nothing to discuss here. Those are Wikipedia's rules, not mine.

Just so you know, I don't have a dog in this race. My personal POV leans much more towards the same POV that both of you are expressing. But my own POV is just as worthless to Wikipedia as both of yours. Because what the encyclopedia needs is reliably sourced statements, not opinions. What I will not do is sit idly by and allow you, Haldraper, or anyone else, either put unsourced material (that is not immediately obvious) into the article, nor remove sourced material from it based purely on your own POV. Because that would be POV-pushing which runs contrary to what the Wikipedia project is about. In this whole issue I feel like a judge/jury who would really like to see the defendant get off, but I've just listened to the prosecution present a whole mountain of incriminating evidence, and now I'm sitting here waiting for this guy's defence QC to refute at least some of it so that there is some basis to acquit, but the defence is coming up with nothing but a lot of hand-waving. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Never have so many keys been needlessly typed for such a trivial matter on Wikipedia. Anyone can say, original research that or where are yours citations, but a little bit of common sense has to practised here. I've never heard the actual stadium called Sportcity, and I don't think many others have either. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You probably could have saved all your own needless key work by reading WP:REHASH before making that post. :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 08:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And the source for it doesn't even say what is claimed: the Holiday Inn Manchester website (not even sure if that counts as a reliable source to be honest) says Manchester City's home is at SportCity which it is - it doesn't mean the stadium is called that, either officially or unofficially. Haldraper (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

See response to Steve above. You can attack the reliability of that hotel source as much as you want, but so far you have provided nothing here that supports your own position/POV. You started this discussion 1-0 down WRT cited RS (viz. the CB MEN article) supporting or refuting SportCity as a valid alternative common name for the stadium. In the process of this conversation two more sources have been proffered that support that name while you have provided nothing that refutes it, so you are now 3-0 down. Even if we reject those last two sources as not being reliable/convincing enough you are still 1-0 down and have done nothing to further your cause yet. Until you can come up with something that is not just a reaffirmation of your own personal opinion there's really not much more we can do here. Honestly, I would love to see you prove your point, and in the background here I'm trying to find something to help you do that. But without an RS that supports your case there is no basis to change the status quo.

WRT the applicability of that hotel source, everyone knows that City's home is the CoMS stadium and that MCFC have nothing whatsoever to do with SportCity other than they lease the brightest jewel in its crown. In the statement that the hotel gives access "to local attractions such as Sportcity (home of Manchester City Football Club)" if you substitute what really is the home of MCFC (i.e., the stadium) back into that statement then it reads as follows: "... to local attractions such as Sportcity (the stadium of Manchester City Football Club)" which most certainly supports the case against your own POV. Even if you convince the ref. to disallow that latest goal for offside, you still cannot make that Chris Bailey article go away. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

From the MEN: HOW do you refer to City's home? The City of Manchester Stadium? COMS? Eastlands? Perhaps you're even one of the few people who call it Sportcity? ("HOW do you refer to City's home? The City of Manchester Stadium? COMS?", MEN, 30 Oct 2009.) Mr Stephen (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there meant to be a link in that post? The way I read what you've just written is that it only adds further support to the status quo. Even if it's true (because I refrain from making a judgment here) that fewer people commonly refer to the stadium by the name SportCity than by the names Eastlands or CoMS then that name still has to be mentioned in the article for the sake of balance. If the article had only suggested three names in its quizzical title it would have strongly supported Hal's argument, whereas the fact that it includes the SportCity name along with the other three actually makes the disputed name their peers, thus supporting my own case. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If we changed the lead-in text to the following (word changes indicated in bold font) would you guys be any happier? ... The City of Manchester Stadium in Manchester, England – also now known as the Etihad Stadium for sponsorship purposes – is the home ground of Manchester City. Also frequently referred to by its acronym CoMS and site name Eastlands, and sometimes by its location name SportCity, it is ..." I think there most certainly is a case for distancing the SportCity name from the other two based on frequency of use, but you have NOT made a case to eliminate it completely. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 02:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't making a case for anything, just injecting a third-party on-topic comment from a source that could be regarded as reliable in this context. (The italic part is the quotation.) And no, there isn't supposed to be a link in there. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Hal will probably dispute that MEN is a reliable source in this context – his whole argument is based on his belief that the currently cited MEN RS [13] is an unreliable source and is "on shaky ground". So what is your opinion of the suggested rewording of the lead-in text, Steve? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 08:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts I'm afraid Lasagne. Of course the MEN's a reliable source. It's the fact that the comment is an aside about what some people might refer to stadium as, not a claim about what's it's official or commonly used unofficial name is. That's why you haven't be able to find any other refs that refer to the stadium rather than the complex it's sited on as SportCity. Haldraper (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That comment isn't an aside. It's central to the main thrust of what that article was about. The main theme of that article was that since the stadium has at least four commonly used names (which he explicitly lists), none of which predominates nor has a sentiment, tradition or history associated with it to the extent that Maine Road had, it is ripe for a sponsorship renaming. Which is exactly what has now happened, thus proving Chris Bailey's analysis presented in that article five years ago a sound one. You really need to go acquaint yourself with the true meaning of an aside. If your best argument for claiming that that MEN article "is on shaky ground" is based on your own lack of understanding of basic English grammar terminology then we are done with this discussion, because your claim that that statement is an aside is a specious one. Your latest admission that you agree with both Steve and I that MEN is a reliable source also undermines your position still further.

The other argument that you have presented here, that SportCity cannot possibly be a name that is used to refer to the stadium because it is only meant to refer to the whole sporting complex, is also a fallacious one and a hypocritical one too. You have already stated above: "when it comes to CoMS, Eastlands or the Etihad, we could cite dozens of match reports - as well as official statements by the club, council and UEFA". Eastlands as a name has exactly the same status as SportCity - it refers to an area that is much larger than the stadium itself and is therefore incorrectly used when applied to just the stadium. Yet you are on record as accepting Eastlands as a valid common name for the stadium while at the same time arguing that SportCity cannot possibly be a name in common usage for the stadium because that would be a misuse of that term. I'm afraid you're talking out of both sides of your mouth and your arguments have no credence. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, this concert in an arena called Sportcity Stadium looks an awful lot like it really took place in CoMS to me. Am I imagining things? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 02:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a joke Lasagne? It certainly made me laugh. YouTube being cited as a reliable source. I've seen it all now... Haldraper (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly did I say it was a "reliable source" from the perspective of being used as such in the article? We already have two of those, one of which - the CB MEN article - you have described as both being a reliable source ("Of course the MEN's a reliable source.") and as being "on shaky ground". It cannot be both - except possibly in your own twisted mind. You have repeatedly stated in this discussion that you have personally never heard the ground referred to as SportCity - and that personal POV is your only basis for starting this discussion with a view to getting that term removed from the article's lead-in text and Infobox. Do these words sound at all familiar to you? ... "Does any City fan say they're going to SportCity when they go to a home match?" and "I've never seen or heard the ground referred to as that in the media."

That 'YouTube' video is clear evidence that the problem here lies solely with your own personal lack of experience and NOT with either of the MEN articles that have been mentioned in this discussion. Some Take That fan obviously believes that City's stadium is called SportCity Stadium otherwise he would not have titled his 'YouTube' video that way. No one made him do it. It is clear evidence that there exist some people on the planet that refer to the stadium in that manner. That video cannot be used as a "reliable source" in the article as supporting evidence that SportCity is the official name of the stadium because that Take That fan is not an authority on that subject. It also cannot be used as a "reliable source" in the article as supporting evidence that SportCity is a common name for the stadium because it is just one instance of the name SportCity in common usage, and one instance does not conclusively prove common usage.

However, to post a link to that video in this discussion is a perfectly valid use of it, because it shows everyone what a numpty you are for miscomprehending Chris Bailey's overview of all the main common names people use to refer to the stadium. It also shows everyone that you need to get out of your house a bit more - or perhaps simply learn how to surf the web a little better - because if you had done either of those things, hopefully you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time by raising this non-issue here.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the reasons people are referring to City's ground as Sportcity Stadium is because the LRTA has been referring to its planned Metrolink station as Sportcity-Stadium for the last two or three years or so. Because people automatically assume that the names given to railway/tram stations and tram/bus termini have official sanction. Of course, that name is hyphenated and (I'm assuming) was really shorthand for "SportCity sports complex and City of Manchester Stadium" which are the two main destinations that the new Metrolink station is intended to serve. IMO that station name is a really bad choice of name format because that hyphen is going to be (already has been) overlooked by many people accessing that web site and, if it had remained, ultimately using that station. In subsequently changing the name of the planned Metrolink station to Eastlands City Stadium the LRTA presumably acknowledged that fact, but its choice of new name was as equally, if not more, obtuse and inappropriate IMO. Hopefully, its latest choice of name for this station - Etihad Campus - will remain and not be changed out once again for something quite as inappropriate and misleading as the first two naming attempts ... but I wouldn't bet on it! Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There's also this on YouTube which refers to the stadium as the Council House, why shouldn't we add that to the lead as well given it's a commonly used name? Haldraper (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There are even reliable sources for it, The Mirror and FourFourTwo. Haldraper (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

For quite awhile I have seriously considered adding The Council House to the Names section of the article. As a nickname it has an equal claim to mention there as The Blue Camp and Middle Eastlands. In fact, its omission shows a somewhat unobjective editorial decision considering that those other two names are mentioned, so I've gone ahead and added it. It might (should?) also be added to the lead-in text if you could find a source reference other than Mirror Football which establishes that it is used on a continual basis and by a wide-swath of people, not just City-hating United fans. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That FourFourTwo article is both undated and unattributed, and it resides on a football blog site. The content of that blog also appears closer to being editorial than to neutral objectivity. It fails multiple times as a reliable source - at least for contentious information. If you were using it as a referenced RS to support the statement that Oasis played at the stadium in 2005 it would probably be OK ... because everyone knows that is true anyway. You need to go read WP:NEWSORG. The author of a quoted source is one of the key factors in determining its reliability ... and you don't know who wrote that article. You don't even know when that piece was written. That site does have a history (launched 1994) as does its publisher Haymarket, but it's still relatively recent compared with, say, the MEN newspaper. All of which is why I've removed your latest addition to the lead-in text. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 09:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)