Talk:Lucas Oil Stadium

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

Untitled[edit]

This was added to a stray article:

Indianapolis plans to have the new Colts stadium complete by the year 2008. The new stadium seems to offer many benefits for the Colts and the city of Indianapolis. An event Indianapolis is hoping to hold by the year 2011 is the Super Bowl. Although the stadium is planned to be complete by 2008, an expanded Convention Center, needed for a Super Bowl, will not be finished until 2010. To hold a Super Bowl, an NFL team bids with its city in a year-long process. The year 2011 is still up for grabs, and the Colts are hoping to hold the Super Bowl in that year. A major difficulty in selling Indianapolis to the Official NFL is location. Most Super Bowls are held in warm, sunny locations. Indianapolis will need to sell the Midwest in general, where temperatures rarely exceed the 40s in February. Another factor for Indianapolis is money. Indianapolis is small in corporate headquarters and the media market, which attracts advertising and media. The city of Indianapolis will need to sell and promote all that it is worth. If the Super Bowl does land in Indianapolis, the event will give Indy a big economic boost. The future of the Colts and city of Indianapolis is highly anticipated with the new stadium and hopes for a Super Bowl.

If anyone is interested in integrating it into this article... a news story source would be good too. --W.marsh 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar[edit]

I removed "Closed" and "Demolished" from the sidebar. They didn't seem necessary considering it could be 30 years or more until they apply to this stadium.--Letsgomets1212 16:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10% Property Tax Increase[edit]

The article indicates that property taxes will be increased by 10% to pay for the stadium. Any truth to that? Jcarlyle 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lucasoilplanned.jpg[edit]

Image:Lucasoilplanned.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lucasoilplanned.jpg[edit]

Image:Lucasoilplanned.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

"The Luke"[edit]

I'm not going to revert the revert because there's no reason to start an edit war over it, but I have heard "The Luke" as the prevalent nickname the stadium is earning, so I think it is legitimate to include that in the article. Craig R. Nielsen 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should call it The Barn, because it looks like a barn. PolarisSLBM 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure its a 'prevalent' nickname when I haven't even heard of that besides on here... therefore I think we should wait until there is a consensus name. I'm a pretty hardcore fan, so if I haven't heard a name then I convinced its not very legit. Also, does it even have to have a nickname? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.248.104 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I work in the Indianapolis media market. Heck, I drive by the place everyday. I've never heard this nickname until it showed up on this page. Nobody is widely calling it "The Luke." It has no nickname at this point. Just my two cents.

There is a source on the page to an Anderson newspaper calling it The Luke. I've heard numerous people call it The Luke, and people know it as The Luke (though the entire "I've heard/never heard argument is personal research and cannot be factored in. There is a source for the name in use, hence its inclusion in the article. -- MeHolla! 16:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concede the point. I just read an article dated June 21st of 2007 by Bill Benner where he references it as "The Luke." He's a widely respected member of the Indy sports community. I still don't think it's widespread, but it seems to be the one and only catching nickname out there. (and I apologize for my terrible Wiki editing...hehe)

The Luke isn't a prevalent nickname on the southside. I have never heard of the nickname until it appeared on this page. I don't believe that "an Anderson newspaper" constitutes prevalent. Thats my opinion. Chase I 01:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. I hadn't heard of it either until it appeared on here, then again on one news report on local TV. HoosierStateTalk 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Luke is absolutely not a nickname in common usage, at all, ever. Because one journalist in a relatively minor newspaper referred to it as such does not make it the stadium's nickname. I could refer to it as The House of Champions, but that doesn't make it a nickname. IF, in the future, the stadium is referred to as The Luke on a regular basis, on a national scale, by more than one or two people, then it will warrant inclusion as a nickname. At present, it does not even come close. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The owner of Lucas Oil is against it, so I am against it. If it is prevalent enough, note should be taken. http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/08/16/lucas-oil-stadium-dont-call-it-the-luke/ http://laughing-stalk.blogspot.com/2008/08/dont-call-lucas-oil-stadium-luke.html. Reywas92Talk 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC) John Madden called it the Luke last night when calling the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.66.48 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What John Madden called it doesn't matter. We don't use John Madden as the official nicknamer of stadiums. Lucas Oil stadium has been open for about a month, that's hardly long enough for the paint to dry and the concrete to set. Much less for a nickname to emerge. When looking at nicknames, ones like "Theatre of Dreams" or "Happy Valley" have taken years to become commonly used. Memorial Stadium at IU has been called "The Rock" for about two years now and it still hasn't caught on. If, as the season or years go on, The Luke is used as frequently or more frequently as Lucas Oil Stadium, then it will warrant inclusion. At present, just because John Madden called it that and it was mentioned in one news article, does not make it the prevalent nickname. It simply has not been used enough to warrant inclusion. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, as requested, I will discuss this on the Talk page. Let's do this point by point:
A) I saw the removal of the nickname by an IP-address editor, and am so accustomed to hearing it constantly everywhere I go in discussion about the team and the building that I hastily reverted it without checking the most recent discussion on the talk page. I apologize.
B) In response to the edit comments, I do in fact participate in the talk page. In fact, you will note that I started the thread about this very issue, and did so as opposed to a cold revert in order to avoid an edit war. I will not revert it again without further discussion. Also, I actually am not personally a fan of the nickname, I was just going for accuracy, not preference.
C) I do, however, believe that "The Luke" is prevalent enough to warrant it's inclusion as the nickname in this article. Let me present my case.
1) National Media: I realize that it was only one comment by one sportscaster, but it was by a lead personality on the NFL's pinnacle broadcast property (Sunday Night Football) during the first regular game from this facility, during which half the time is spent drooling over the facility. If NBC casually found this nickname, then it's simply cannot be true that it's "not a nickname in common usage, at all, ever".
2) Statewide dissemination: The name is not some isolated fluke, I found reference to it in a few reputable papers (and I only did a Google News search), the most notable from a different media market being the Fort Wayne ([1]).
3) Indianapolis Star: The Indy Star functions as the paper of record not just for the city or metro, but for the entire state. That doesn't make something like a nickname official, but it does mean that there is a level of notoriety that prevents just any-old-saying from appearing there. Though many of the actual "news" articles referencing it are behind the registration requirement or archived now ([2]), here are a couple examples from the Lifestyle-esque sections of the conglomerate: [3], [4].
4) Sponsor acknowledgment: Oddly the most compelling evidence of all, Lucas Oil is so opposed to what has increasingly solidified as the nickname that they delivered a whole article worth of dissent on the issue in the IBJ: [5]. Now, if this was really not the broadly accepted nickname, why would they be making an issue of it?
5) I have frequently heard it called "The Luke" since not long after the naming deal was announced. (I concede that this is by far the weakest argument, as it's based on unverifiable personal experience, but it has as much relevance as the primary argument in opposition of mine, which is "I've never heard it before")
It's a nickname, it's never going to have any kind of magic stamp of approval that makes us confident adding it to the article. (And sponsors are never fond of brand-obscuring nicknames, their consent has nothing to do with a nickname taking hold and being notable enough for this article) But, it is the most common in usage (can you present any evidence to the contrary than anything else is in popular use?), and even according to detractors it continues to accelerate in adoption. If the consensus is that we should withhold a decision for awhile, the end of the season maybe, that's fine. But I doubt that there will be anything but irrefutable adoption by then. Sorry for the trouble, Craig R. Nielsen (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're using original research (not allowed), blogs (not allowed) and then you claim that Fort Wayne is a different media market than Indianapolis. There are people in Ft. Wayne who get the star, hardly a different media market. Wait until large amounts of mass media refer to it as such (i.e. the overwhelming majority of papers in Europe refer to Old Trafford as the "Theatre of Dreams." I'm sorry, but John Madden, the Star and a po-dunk newspaper in Fort Wayne don't make it a nickname. Your argument that it's the most commons in usage is original research and pov. I've heard the stadium called Indiana Stadium (from the original plans) more than i've heard it called "The Luke." And yes, it can be said that it's not a nickname in common usage, as it's not. Firstly there hasn't been enough time for anything to be common about the stadium, let alone a nickname. Nicknames and identities on these things take YEARS to develop at times, not three weeks. If, over time, it becomes as known by the general public as "The Luke" as it is as "Lucas Oil Stadium," then we can update the article. At present, there is no notable, common, accepted nickname for the stadium. Period. 98.215.71.23 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Craig wins this topic and you come back with "It won't be allowed because I don't want it to be included". Fail. -- MeHolla! 18:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more references you can go ahead and read over:

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/chickludwig/entries/2008/08/29/aftermath_bengals_27_colts_7.html
http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/articles/2008/08/22/sports/01.txt
http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframes/FrontEndArticlesDetailPage.aspx?ArticleID=18734&NoFrame=1
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080828/LOCAL0502/808280358/1159/SPORTS0202
http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080825/SPORTS/808250343/1006
http://www.indy.com/posts/11469

From Springfield, OH; Greenfield, IN; the IBJ and Star, Muncie, IN; and the Star's offshoot Indy.com. Point is, it's prevalent, whether you happen to like the name or not. It's not just in this article. -- MeHolla! 18:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to lie, at least make one that's not going to be easily disproven. Where did I EVER say that "it won't be allowed because I don't want it included?" There's a way to debate and discuss without being a complete and total asshat, I suggest you research that process. Secondly, nobody 'wins' in these discussions, consensus is gained or not gained. In this case, it has not been gained, and discussion will continue on whether or not the name is as prevalent as you are making it out to be. Learn to discuss and debate like an adult and people will take you more seriously. Until a consensus is gained, i'll continue to debate the topic. 98.215.71.23 (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire argument boils down to you not wanting it in the article, and you reverting any showing that it IS a nickname that is prevalent. Maybe you should think like an adult and stop taking everything quite so literal. -- MeHolla! 14:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite ironic for you, who has lied outright about things i've written to try to further your (nonsense) point, to be telling anyone to act like an adult. 98.215.71.23 (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources were provided showing the stadium being called "The Luke." All you did was scream original research and call names at newspapers in Ft Wayne. Gathering sources that show thing A and then putting thing A in the article is not original research. Original research is finding sources that show thing A and saying that means thing B. Enough sources have been gathered to say this is a common nickname for the stadium. I see a consensus that it is a common nickname. Eastshire (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you'd read, the original person I was discussing it with has admitted they used original research. Gathering one or two sources (that actually pass WP:CITE does not make a nickname notable. NOTHING has been gathered to say that this is a common nickname for the stadium, just that it is one that has been created so far that is trying to catch on with people. 98.215.71.23 (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A) Fair enough on original research, we'll disqualify my "Point 5". However, we will also have to eliminate the argument of "I've never heard it" for the identical reason. Neither personal experience is proof of anything.
B) As for blogs, you're likely correct that there a policy against using blogs as a resource (please link to it if you don't mind), but depending on the exact wording of the policy, I would argue that blogs supported by a media enterprise like Gannett (USA Today, IndyStar, etc.) have some credibility as opposed to one independently operated. Possibly a losing point on my part.
C) By literal definition, Fort Wayne is absolutely NOT in the same media market as Indianapolis. Please see List of television stations in North America by media market, List of United States radio markets, or any other outside source about the media industry to confirm this point. Yes, some people in Ft. Wayne get the Indy Star. Some people in Indianapolis get the Chicago Tribune or New York Times as well.
D) Time to develop a nickname: Please present evidence of your golden rule that a nickname must by definition take years to develop. Sure, many nicknames do take that long to catch on, but you cannot from there make the logical leap that for something to qualify as a nickname, it must have been in use for years. Also, though the stadium has only been open for a few weeks, it has been named for a couple of years now, and since the nickname in question is a derivative of that name, it has had more time to develop than the "weeks" you're giving it credit for.
E) If you would like, please provide reasons for refuting my other points, unless you are considering them valid: 3)Indianapolis Star (The specific links I provided were blog-ish, however, another link I provided listed actual stories that don't just mention "The Luke", but have that exact phrase even in the title), 4) IBJ Article, where this very issue is actually addressed by the sponsor. Also, in addition to my points, there do appear to be additional examples above.
The burden is in fact on those of us supporting inclusion of "The Luke", and I could support a moratorium on this until the end of this first season. In the meantime, let's please avoid making reversions as (foolishly) unilateral as mine which reignited this topic in the first place. Games from the stadium will be broadcast nationally on multiple networks with multiple personalities, and more articles will appear on it, both related to the Colts and other events held in the venue, so there will be plenty of opportunity for the nickname to surface. However, I think we also need to be careful not to set the bar for inclusion artificially high just to meet an arbitrary definition of "nickname". Craig R. Nielsen (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds fair. Let's see what they start calling during games, and such. From looking at the sources provided, it is clear that a few places are calling it The Luke. But shouldn't it be more widespread and more common before we put it here? What is to stay that once it is done, and they start holding games in it, they don't come up with a whole different nickname? Like Big Oily. :P I believe wait and see is the best approach for this matter. Charles Edward 12:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There already HAS been a nationally televised game, and it already HAS been referred to as The Luke. We've got broadcasts, newspaper articles, fan sites. What else do you want? At what point are you going to be satisfied? There is plenty of referencing for it to be included in this article. And once you take out the "I've never heard it before seeing it here" argument, you have absolutely no leg to stand on. -- MeHolla! 14:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that I hadn't heard it before seeing it here. Perhaps if you'd open your eyes and read instead of just making crap up you'd make more sense, but i sincerely doubt it. I DO have a leg to stand on, in that there is absolutely no prevalent nickname yet. The stadium is called Lucas Oil with much more frequency than "The Luke." WP:BRD should guide us here, as well as the "wait and see" approach. You seem to be on the "my way or the highway" approach. The Stadium has been called the following in the media: Lucas Oil Stadium, Indiana Stadium, The Luke, The House that Peyton/Dungy Built, etc, etc, etc. Why are the other 3 "nicknames" not included? Because none of them is prevalent...at all. Perhaps in a year, or 6 months, or 10 years, The Luke will be the move prevalent nickname, perhaps even surpassing in popularity the actual name. At present it is not a prevalent, widely used, or well-known nickname. If you go to pretty much ANY person in England and you ask them what the "Theater of Dreams" is, they'll tell you it's Old Trafford. If you go up to a random person in Indy and ask them what "The Luke" is, they likely won't know what the hell you're talking about. 98.215.71.23 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify my position here. I do agree that the nickname is in use. But to be notable, I believe it needs to be widespread and regularly used. I don't see how, since the building is so new, that a nickname could have been created already that we can be certain is widespread and will continue to be used for a significant period of time, and is just not a short "fad". I do believe, once a fair period of time has passed, and it is still being referred to as "The Luke", and it become MORE widespread - then inclusion is warranted. I would be OK to say some are calling it the Luke, but to make it sound as though it is a widespread, and regularly used nickname is inaccurate at this point. Charles Edward 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So tell us all how exactly you will show, without using original research, that the name is "prevalent", because apparently using the same method that is used to include EVERYTHING else on Wikipedia (multiple, reliable, third-party sources) just isn't good enough for the Anonymous Editor. -- MeHolla! 02:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. If it is used on ESPN, and also used in multiple other sports stories and games, then use it here - As in, if it is used in the majority or a large minority of articles and sportcasts regarding the stadium, then it is fair to include. Short of that, lets just take a vote. I just do not see how we can gauge its use so early. I personally have never heard of the stadium except for this article and have lived in Indiana for most of my life... I have no dog in this fight. I am just looking at what I see here, and I see overwhelming more uses of its official name than its purported nickname. If you can find its name used on a reliable, well circulated sources - like ESPN, or INDYSTAR, or Fox Sports, or something like that, and you can find it there multiple times, then it is acceptable to me. Charles Edward 03:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of references from well circulated sources posted earlier in this debate. Plus the few mentions on NBC earlier this week. And again, the "I've never heard it" argument is OR and not valid. -- MeHolla! 09:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been opposed by Mr. Lucas I'm against it, but with proper wording I will not complain if it is in the article. Reywas92Talk 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's opposed by Mr. Lucas furthers the case for inclusion. If it's well known enough to have Mr. Lucas worried about his investment, it's obviously well-known enough to be included in this article. -- MeHolla! 09:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more references for you to look over:

http://www.methodistsports.com/aboutus/coltspartnership.html
http://www.squi doo.com/lucasoilstadium
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080825/SPORTS0203/808250316/1018
http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/chickludwig/entries/2008/08/31/josh_betts_hes_baaack.html
http://www.wsbt.com/sports/27347299.html
http://www.vype.com/centralindiana/general/2549
http://www.heraldbulletin.com/sports/local_story_192234138.html

-- MeHolla! 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Reywas92. I will not revert it if re-added. Charles Edward 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Reywas92 as well. I don't think it belongs but it's not worth my time to revert. HoosierStateTalk 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ditto everyone who disagreed with the nickname. Most my points have been stated previously. This nickname is a media and/or internet thing. It is not widely used. The name is ignored by the building operators, the team which uses the building, the city of Indianapolis, as well as general media most of the time. Occasional media uses, followed by nerds with blogs, does not constitute its adoption. Even so, the stadium has only been open for a small amount of time, too short to have a true nickname of any kind. Happy now? NeuGye (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The people at the venue are under orders to not use the nickname because Lucas doesn't like it. Ditto everyone else you listed. But we have a quote from a member of the team using it, plenty of media use, etc. You cannot show that it is not widespread. I can show that it is widespread and have. Also, Jacobs Field was immediately called "The Jake" just like The Luke has been picked up when it first opened in the 90s, same with Victory Field being called "The Vic". So time of being open means zero. -- MeHolla! 16:11, 15 September 2008 (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.

I also would like to also add that the Star's use cited is used improperly. It is just one shoot off mention in one article. There are countless articles from the Star on the Stadium where the nickname is never even hinted at. To say the Star uses the nickname would be misleading if one accounts for every article on the subject and sees the very small percentage (only one cited so far) in which "The Luke" is used. NeuGye (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed stadium[edit]

I think we should remove the proposed stadium template since it's already done and it is ging to be opened soon. Brady4mvp (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it once, and it was reverted. HoosierState said, and I guess I'll defer, that it should stay until it is officially opened. -- MeHolla! 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it's not done, the field hasn't even been installed yet and the south windows are still going up. Personally I'd prefer if there was a tag that said "under construction" instead of "proposed". HoosierStateTalk 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Template:Stadium_under_construction -- MeHolla! 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former Names[edit]

The name "Indiana Stadium" was the official name of the stadium when proposed (see: http://wifinetnews.com/archives/005890.html) and I want to add it back into the article, but don't want an edit war erupting, so here I bring it first. -- MeHolla! 17:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment - "The Luke" Nickname[edit]

I'm putting this to the RfC people because we are apparently spinning our wheels on this nickname issue.

The entire conversation is listed above, but let me outline the discussion briefly:

Side Against:

1. Refutes given sources.

2. Says that since no official nickname has been given by the Colts, that nothing should be included in article.

3. Has never heard of it themselves.

Side For:

1. Provided many reliable, third party sources (listed above) for inclusion of this nickname, including media reports (both local and national), fan blogs, an article about how the man who spent 100+ million dollars naming the stadium does not like the nickname, and a quote from a player himself.

2. Thinks that no official designation would ever come from the Colts organization, as they have money ties to keeping "Lucas Oil Stadium" out in the public.

3. Thinks the "I've never heard of it" argument constitutes Original Research.

I think that that is pretty much it.

-unsigned


I wish to update the bias position views above.

Side for: 1. Provided many newpaper, media, and internet cites that use the nickname. 2. Says such sources constitute an unofficial nickname worthy of entry in the article. 3. Wants citation that the nickname is not as they see it

Side against: 1. Sees the nickname as a media and/or internet creation not used widely otherwise 2. Says nickname is not as widespread but says you cannot cite such claims of nonexistance 3. Does not see the need to add such a nickname in the article

I hope this is slightly less bias than the previous summation. NeuGye (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here and not connected with the subject in any way but it seems to me that a good case that 'The Luke' is in common use has been made, with references. I see no strong case against. It might be phrased, 'known to some as.../known in some circles as...' etc. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have an argument against. Read above. Above all, I ask why the name needs to be included, even if some can say it is used. It is unofficial, disputed, speculation at best. Citing the media as a source is sketchy. Under normal use the media should be citing things in thier stories. If this was another topic, such an inclusion would not be considered factual. If Wikipedia is to be held to a higher standard then we should not be including stuff in articles just because we can. Does adding a nickname in the article enhance the article as a factual source in any real manner? Who can argue with that? NeuGye (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your case against. The stadium is called 'The Luke', by some journalists at least. That is a verified fact and as such justifies its inclusion in the article.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no dog in this fight but read the blue section above and a few of the references. And I agree with Martin Hogbin, it clearly does have a nickname and the article should mention it. ScottJ (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding,'controversially called by some "The Luke"'. This is verifiable and sums up the sum up the situation regarding the name.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name is not controversial itself. I have no beef with Luke. It is the inclusion of the name that is. The name is not embraced by anyone connected to the stadium. Maybe a mention here or there by someone connected, but otherwise it is used by those unconnected. Luke only exsists to those who want it to. I still maintain, despite references by the media (which is not a reliable source when a media article is original research itself) the nickname should not be included. Why add something just because you can? This nickname is not accepted in general. Why would you want it tied to the stadium article? NeuGye (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name is controversial in itself - I understand that the person after whom the stadium is named does not like the stadium being called 'The Luke' because of a dispute with another company. A Google search of the subject shows considerable controversy. The reason that the nickname should be included is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform. Consider, for example, a person who hears that a particular event will be on at The Luke and who wishes to confirm that the venue being referred to is, in fact, the Lucas Oil Stadium. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a reference many sites I visit call it LOS and I have seen TV stations use it as well JS JS043 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some fans of drum corps started calling it the Oil Can this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.239.142 (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

I don't know if any of you have noticed, but there is an album on Flickr that contains 100+ pics of the "new" stadium that may be used on Wikipedia (all are licensed as CC-ShareAlike). Remember to upload the pics to WikiCommons so other wikis may use them as well. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to be first ever that divides lengthwise[edit]

"This retractable roof is the first ever that divides lengthwise[7]." is incorrect and not supported by the external link anyway, see Amsterdam ArenA and Gelredome for earlier examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunopostle (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania XXXIV?[edit]

Should Vince McMahon bring WrestleMania XXXIV to hosting the event in the Lucas Oil stadium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.241.74 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Firms[edit]

I'm trying to put Moore Engineers, P.C. (engineer of record) as the primary service engineer on the stadium but I'm not sure how. If someone could do that here is the link to Lucas Oil Stadiums web site http://www.lucasoilstadium.com/about.aspx. Moore Engineers, P.C. is listed under "Facts and Information". I'd like to see the correct information on this page. Thanks! MEP Engineer (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Roserunner12xc (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These changes keep getting reverted. It seems that we need an official statement from the stadium owners or information that is published in a reliable independent source, such as a newspaper or engineering organization. Would all be happy if the arena owners sent an official email to a WMF administrator as to which firms they want listed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lucasoilstadium.com/about.aspx http://www.archdaily.com/205212/super-bowl-xlvi-lucas-oil-stadium/ http://www.walkindianapolis.org/lucas.html http://construction.about.com/od/Existing-Projects/a/Lucas-Oil-Stadium-Super-Bowl-2012-Where-Is-The-Super-Bowl-Xlvi.htm http://www.kibi.org/news/indianapolis_international_airport_receives_the_2009_monumental_award http://www.qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=594254 http://www.nwitimes.com/sports/high-school/boys-basketball/where-are-they-now-john-wilczynski/article_9d8106d1-f85c-5c99-8fad-f5a525a13e18.html

I'm not sure how getting the owners input isn't a conflict of interest so I have provided ample supporting articles and web sites to this information.Roserunner12xc (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I only put 2 in that list them. It seems they won an award for it as well. If anyone reverts now they should end up in a deep hole.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lucas Oil 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) 01:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucas_Oil_Stadium&oldid=1206290516"