Talk:Docklands Stadium

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

Docklands Stadium?[edit]

Should there be a redirect here from Docklands Stadium?

Was it ever officially called Docklands Stadium? Or was that only its 'development name'? In which case it probably shouldn't be a redirect. Hypernovean 06:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

During development it was called Victoria Stadium at Docklands --202.1.29.108 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Re-Naming of Article[edit]

I'd like to propose the article be re-named to Docklands Stadium. Telstra Dome is it's commercial name. Some other examples include:

  • Football Park - AAMI Stadium
  • Princess Park - Optus Oval
  • Kardinia Park - Shell (or whatever it's named this week) Stadium

And the list goes on What happens when they change the commercial name of it again?

I think the logic and common sense speaks for itself, It needs to be called Docklands Stadium, simply because it is a stadium, and it is located in Docklands (a suburb of Melbourne), it is not a Dome and it is not located in Telstraland. Excuse the stupid humour but it really is quite rediculous.

Sorry about the naming dispute, I think it's a great article, it really is, the only problem is the name, everything else has been compiled and written perfectly : )Nick carson 15:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd need to see proof that Docklands Stadium was ever an official name. If its just the colloquial non-commerical name then I dont think thats good enough for an article name. Remy B 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like "Docklands Stadium" - I don't see why we should move the article to a new title every time a new sponsor comes around. I think that "Docklands" could be the most common usage (which is what Wikipedia usually uses), since it will always be used whereas sponsor's names come and go — for example I always confuse "Telstra Dome" and "Telstra Stadium", whereas I have no confusion about "Docklands Stadium". Also I would guess that the official name would never have been "Docklands" (not sure though), because a sponsor has always owned the official name. But anyway, here are some usages (3 places I thought to check), all of which refer to the past:
  • Steel contractor uses Telstra Dome in their portfolio
  • Architect (fancy site you have to click on "Sports" to see) uses "Docklands Stadium"
  • Two technical journal articles, eg in Concrete (London) - 2002, use "Colonial Stadium, Melbourne" in their title. The only 2 journal articles I found.--Commander Keane 13:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was called Colonial Stadium until the Commonwealth Bank bought Colonial Bank, at which time the naming rights lapsed - to be taken up by Telstra. The government broadcasters refer to the stadium as `Docklands Stadium'

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/columns/200602/s1580123.htm 

jkm 14:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting question. The stadium has been known as "Telstra Dome" for >95% of its existance - it's not like it changes names regularly. -- Chuq 05:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it should be (changed)! Wikipedia should NOT be promoting companies such as telstra by calling it telstra dome

. Docklands stadium will only ever be in docklands, whereas "telstra dome" could change in the future, as it has already from "cononial stadium". This is just the heading of the article remember, you can have all the stupid commercial names somewhere else in the article! And even to the ABC its docklands stadium because of the ABC's policy of not promoting companies. Change the name already!!!! Adammw 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During development it was known as Victoria stadium.... --Hack 07:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should be named "Docklands Stadium", with redirects from Telstra Dome, Colonial Stadium and Victoria Stadium (assuming references can be found for the latter). "Docklands Stadium" is best because it is not a former name - it is still being used by some organisations (see ABC news link above). -- Chuq 10:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a move of the article to Telstra Dome for about the third time this year. Each time the move has been by a user who is not a regular editor of the article, and certainly hasn't bothered to check the talk page. I have also applied page move protection to the article to prevent it from happening again. -- Chuq (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Telstra dome is the way to go. The government broadcaster (ABC) calls it Docklands Stadium because it doesn't 'advertise'. AAMI Stadium -Football Park was once actually called "Football Park" but the name sold out, however Telstra Dome has since its opening been known by its commercial name. No one knows it as Docklands Stadium, and when the name changes to Etihad Stadium the article name can be changed to this. >>Niveam (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)<<[reply]

The "commercial" name of the stadium has now been "collonial", "telstra", and "etihad" in less than 10 years. I'd suggest that attempting to keep up with that is not in the best interests of people finding the article. I'd also like to point out that there are many references to the stadium in this article that refer to events prior to 2008 that talk about "Etihad stadium management". What is the acceptable use here? They certainly weren't Etihad management at the time :-S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.41.224 (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone did a find-and-replace on the article, replacing every occurrence of Telstra Dome with Etihad Stadium with little regard for context. I think this has happened in a few other articles mentioning the stadium as well. invincible (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done a search and replace and, where logical, replaced Etihad with Docklands. As mentioned it doesn't makes sense for Etihad stadium to be referred to in 2007, and it doesn't make sense to refer to the stadium by three different names throughout the article. The sponsored names can be mentioned in the "naming rights history" section, and in the infobox under "former names" (or nickname for the current sponsored name) and that should be all that is needed. -- Chuq (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

largest attendance for a sporting event[edit]

i changed the largest attendence for a sporting event there - it was in fact the WWE event in 2002 that had 57000 there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.86.90 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 July 2006

I think you may hit some nerves referring to WWE as "sports". It is well known that the events are staged. I won't revert it immediately, will see what others have to say. -- Chuq 05:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it for the time being; if popular opinion disagrees, it could be changed back. I do, however, think it's a stretch to call WWE "sports". W.Ross 14:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so you are saying that the people in the ring are not atletes? they don't so 4 hours a day in a gym? it may not be your cup of tea, but it is sports. in fact it's called "sports-enterainment" i also point you to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport that states (in part) the following definition for sport:

Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. A particular form of this activity. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

In my opinion pro-wrestling fits into this category —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.86.90 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 July 2006

My objection is not the level of fitness, exertion, or skill: it's the "competitive" element. The wrestling events aren't truly competitive in that they are choreographed, and the winner is often determined before the event (or so it is commonly believed). I actually enjoy watching WWE, but that doesn't make it sport, regardless of what they label themseleves. It is Wikipedia consensus that Professional wrestling is a performing art, not a sport. Sports entertainment is likewise regarded as only "superficially tak[ing] the form of a sporting event", with the emphasis more on a storyline arc and spectacle than on athletic skills. If I'm outvoted, that's fine, but for now I will revert in the absence of further evidence of support. W.Ross 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still contend that Pro-wresling is a sport as much as boxing, or motorsports, but i'm interested to see what others think. Tejas57 10:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a sport because it is not competitive and it is choreographed which brings it closer to dancing than sport. At the end of the day the only difference between "Pro" Wrestling and a stage play is the amount of spandex.Mdgr 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


attendence record[edit]

Hey guys, I was at the concert last night and they announced they broke this record (which according to this page, Robbie Williams set last time he came around). I've updated the information. Bihal 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link[edit]

i dunno how to make a link that just says 'Ghost Rider' go to 'Ghost Rider (film)', could someone plz fix that. Viva43 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. To do it, you need to write the link like: [[Ghost Rider (film)|Ghost Rider]]. This can be abbreviated to [[Ghost Rider (film)|]]. See Wikipedia:Pipe trick. -- Chuq 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents/events[edit]

Regarding this edit: [1] - are any of these famous enough to warrant mentioning? Maybe they are notable to the clubs or people involved, but to the stadium? -- Chuq 06:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Events section removed WP:BOLD. I strongly suggest somebody review the section using history and summarise events into prose. The section was becoming superfluous and often quoted insignificant events to retain it's position in an extensive article on such a stadium. Timmah86 (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Picture[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to change the main photo from the logo to something like this: http://www.u2achtung.com/00/u2005/imagesstades/telstradome2.jpg to bring it into line with similar articles. I would do it myself, but havn't figured out how.

Can't give a time frame but if I remember this when I'm in the city with a camera next time, I'll try to get a shot of the stadium with the new signage in place. There are several good vantage points thanks to its location but unfortunately I won't be able to get a shot like the one in the link unless someone supplies me a helicopter (although I could get a view from the other side from the top of the Rialto). :) Definitely agree that having just the logo isn't ideal as the top image. invincible (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cropped version
the clouds make a face!
How are these? I'm leaning towards the cropped version for the lead image. Should I crop it even more tightly? For some inexplicable reason, I didn't make an effort to stand closer to the centre of the stadium when I took the photo so the angle is a tiny bit off. Alternatively, I can take a more recent photo from the same vantage point as Image:TelstraDomeDocklands.jpg the next time I head that way. invincible (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped version looks fine IMO. Bidgee (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image changed, thanks for the feedback. invincible (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adverbs[edit]

I've removed some adverbs as they add nothing to the article. For example calling the docklands area 'developing' (it has a vague meaning) and saying that Telstra Dome is 'currently' something (such as currenlty home to Melbourne Victory). Dgen 04:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Attendance[edit]

The attendance has been broken today for the AFL at Telstra Dome, I didn't get the figures down but after the game is finished I will edit them in. Carlton v Hawthorn the match is.

Infobox suggestion[edit]

I'm not getting much of a response at Template talk:Infobox Stadium so I'll ask here - what do people think of the sample tenants section in the layout displayed at: Template_talk:Infobox_Stadium#New_.27tenants.27_format? (please reply on that page to keep discussion in the one place) -- Chuq (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QANTAS or Qantas[edit]

I just wanted to triple check that as the airline is an acronym shouldn't it be in capital letters? High Speed Chaser (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the usage on the Qantas article and its references, the standard use appears to have the name in standard title case. I believe this is because at some point in time, the company would have changed its name to the word Qantas instead of an acronym given that the original meaning has lost all its relevance. invincible (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)It's Qantas even though the airline uses QANTAS on its logos and aircraft. Bidgee (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moveable seats[edit]

I've seen plenty of rugby games there but I'm yet to see the moveable seats extended. Does anyone have a picture of the seats out? Would make for a great addition to the article.
Paul Paul Roberton (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainy weather nonsense[edit]

An IP editor, despite requests to bring this to the Talk page, simply keeps re-adding some content on a coach complaining that his players got wet when it rained, because the roof wasn't closed, and the editor won't bring the matter here. I won't play the edit war game, so I've brought it here. To me, this addition is completely undue. Footy is fundamentally an outdoor sport. Players have always got wet. They've had to play on wet grass, with a wet ball even, for over 150 years! This complaint appears to be a one off, seems incredibly trivial, and is cluttering the article with junk. The IP editor has even given it its own section now, completely misinterpreting an Edit summary of mine. Do others think it belongs? HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked that now modified content. It had two sources. One pointed to some irrelevant template, the other to something that didn't mention the incident at all. So not only was this undue, it was unsourced. I've removed it for obvious reasons. We MUST do better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big sourcing problem[edit]

Large parts of this article, especially the section on concerts, are severely lacking sources. I suspect most of the content is true, but it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia rules. I don't want to put a "cn" tag beside every piece of unsourced content, and really can't be bothered hunting down sources myself. How do we tackle such poorly cited content? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance record edits[edit]

Could someone check my edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Docklands_Stadium&diff=630327777&oldid=630314941 and subsequent revisions on the same day (20 October 2014) and check who is right? User:HiLo48 and I have conflicting views on whether a tweet from the stadium's own twitter account about an attendance record is a valid source. Rather than edit war I'd like to get additional opinions. See our relevant edit summaries. -- Chuq (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the attendance figures are going to be "self sourced", and no figure is more exceptional than any other. Except maybe getting 70K nutbags in one spot at the same time.

Related move discussion[edit]

Please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I've said my bit! -- Chuq (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Docklands Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Docklands Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transport provision[edit]

Poor article. No mention of transport serving the stadium.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 June 2023[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. The proponents of the move were unable to show it as a clear WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Docklands Stadium → Marvel Stadium – Wikipedia doesn't like to use sponsored names, unless the stadium has only been known by the sponsored names. This stadium has never been called "Docklands" when in operation. Therefore, it should follow the pattern set by other sponsored venues (such as: Emirates Stadium, Allianz Arena, and MetLife Stadium). Emirates is a good example, because it was known as "Ashburton Grove", during planning, similar to the Marvel Stadium. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Some false claims there and faulty logic. The name "Docklands" is very well known and used. I suspect everyone in Melbourne interested in things that happen there will know that name. More than know the more recent, obviously temporary, Marvel name. It is called Docklands extensively by the media, especially its non-commercial elements. Obviously sponsored names change. The name Docklands won't. Sponsored names don't tell us where a stadium is. "Docklands" does. And it's definitely not Wikipedia's job to be advertising commercial entities or products. Unless, of course, those sponsors start paying Wikipedia to do so. HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Docklands Stadium is clearly the non-sponsored name for the stadium, for instance on the ABC [2] SportingFlyer T·C 12:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Despite certain editors' distaste for sponsored names, Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME) applies here. 162 etc. (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the circles in which I move, and in the media I use, Docklands is the common name. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is mostly interested in reliable secondary sources, not social circles. These, for example, which all use "Marvel Stadium": [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 162 etc. (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned social circles to rebut the silly suggestion that Marvel is the common name. Yours are almost all commercial sources themselves, plus the AFL which will obviously use the name of the company that's paying it lots of money. It's the commercial world supporting itself. But we have nothing to gain by providing free advertising to the current sponsoring company when there is a perfectly good and well known non-commercial name, which isn't going to change as advertisers come and go. So why should we? HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because whether a name is sponsored or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia "prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources.)". This is policy. 162 etc. (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial entities with the same interests as the sponsor are, by definition, not independent. And we SHOULD care whether the name is sponsored or not. I have explained why above. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wikipedia seems to list a lot of stadiums in Australia by a nickname, rather than their sponsored name, which I don't like. I agree that the sponsored name is the official name used by the stadium and we should use that instead. Typically, if a name is in big letters at the stadium's entry, that's its proper name. Notsammyray (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OFFICIALNAME to see why this is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Non-sponsored names are preferred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point us to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that you used as justification. 162 etc. (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't want a name that needs to be changed on somebody else's whim. Here we have a totally stable, well known, long term name. Perfect for an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that this reply also fails to cite any Wikipedia guideline or policy. 162 etc. (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't care. Common sense must always be applied too. Wikilawering is a pain in the arse, and rarely leads to the creation of a better encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONSENSUS. Over quite a number of RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not that it should affect this RfM, but it might be worth revisiting usage once the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup concludes in August. ABC have been split (1 uses Marvel, 2 on the same Matildas friendly scheduled for 14 July uses Docklands; 1, 2 use both Docklands and Marvel, though 1 does only in quotes; 1, 2, 3, 4 use only Docklands except in the box score/match data, which appear to come from Opta; 1 uses only Docklands, while 2 uses Marvel in passing). SBS is also split but leans Marvel (1, 2 use both vs. 1, 2, 3 using only Marvel).
The Women's World Cup won't use the venue, but the Matildas-France friendly on 14 July will, and other events displaced by the tournament's require exclusivity will as well, particularly NRL on 30 June (1). Usage among public media during and after the World Cup would likely decide where I'd fall on this. -Socccc (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@90.255.15.152 Oppose I think this is an edge case (I see both names around the same number of times), but for practicality reasons (the name docklands will likely not change and will remain at least as common as the official name at least for a while) I don't think the name should chamge. Safes007 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Docklands Stadium is the facility's most common name per WP:COMMONNAME since 1998 (at least) when under construction.[9] Although also referred to as Marvel Stadium since 2018, it was previously known as Etihad Stadium, Telstra Dome or Colonial Stadium. It has been known as Docklands Stadium throughout those various commercial ownership turnovers. Referred to as Docklands Stadium by non-commercial entities: the Australian Army,[10] and Victorian State Government, [11].shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usage follow-up[edit]

From the 14 July AUSFRA pre-World Cup friendly, domestic coverage from The Guardian used Marvel (1, 2, 3); Sydney Morning Herald: Marvel 1, 2; Nine: Marvel; Seven: Marvel; ABC: Docklands in the authored part, Marvel in the Opta boxscore (1); Reuters: Docklands; AAP: Marvel 1, 2); Optus: Marvel; FTBL/The Women's Game: Marvel (1, 2)

SBS don't seem to have covered the match(?!).

Internationally, UK Metro: Docklands; AFP: "Melbourne"; doesn't refer to the stadium by name; Associated Press: "Melbourne", doesn't refer to the stadium by name (1, 2); Irish Examiner: Marvel; L'Equipe: Marvel (1, 2). Still seems inconclusive, leaning Marvel domestically but inconsistent internationally. -Socccc (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original Plans for Stadium[edit]

I do not believe it is correct to say this Stadium was built as a replacement for 'Waverley Park'. It may have become so, but originally it was part of a 'News Media' project to enhance/increase its engagement with Rugby League and was initiated as a host venue for a Melbourne team. This is why there is, or was in earlier days, issues about the 'north-south' layout of the AFL format because planning was begun without thought for AFL. Ultimately AFL recognised that this stadium would be (likely to be) a state-of-the-art facility and wanted in. Progressively News Media stood back from an interest and the AFL took on the Stadium. 2001:8003:4230:A500:35A8:4373:188D:CBD1 (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Docklands_Stadium&oldid=1206994687"