Talk:Bootham Crescent

GA Review: On Hold
I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it. If you disagree with any of the issues I raised, state your rationale for disagreeing after the issue.
 * 1) Can you add a caption for the image in the infobox? Also for the capacity in the infobox, is there a reason it is situated in the center of the infobox instead of being lined up with the rest of the information?
 * There is a caption given under the relevant field, but it isn't showing up. Any ideas? Maybe I could use  to show it? Mattythewhite (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is in the template Infobox Stadium rather than specifically this article. The field caption appears not to be mentioned in the documentation either. Keith D (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a mis-placed pipe in the template, I have left a note for someone who knows the template to have a look. Keith D (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Placed like this to keep consistency with FAs like Priestfield Stadium and City of Manchester Stadium, but could change it if you like. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) "...concern about their support there had been raised." Is this fan support or financial support or something else? Specify for readers who may question this.
 * I've attempted to clarify this, but my source, York City: A Complete Record 1922-1990, doesn't mention who specifically raised this concern. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) "due to popular demand as well as complying with the recommendations made in the Taylor Report" Add a wikilink for Taylor Report; some readers may be unfamiliar with it. ✅
 * 2) "These floodlights are twice as bright as the original floodlights, and also meet the requirements for Division One football.A new drainage system was installed to improve the quality of the pitch during winter, costing several thousand pounds." Fix the spacing between the two sentences.
 * ✅ Amended. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) "The ground's pitch includes four stands - the David Longhurst Stand..." Use &mdash; for the hyphen (view this page in edit mode to see the formatting if you don't know how to do it).
 * ✅ Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) "On February 4, 2004, the club's board announced that an agreement had been reached which would see York City remain at Bootham Crescent until 2015,[5] by which time they are hoping to move to a new stadium.[14]" Single sentences shouldn't stand alone; the information should either be expanded on or incorporated into another paragraph. Is there any other new relevant information about the upcoming move?
 * ✅ Added more information. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

These should be easy to fix and shouldn't take too long. Good job getting a few free images for the article. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article may be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GA passed
Good job on addressing the above issues so quickly. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. Concerning the infobox, don't worry about altering the capacity, I just thought it was supposed to be lined up with the other parameters, but if other articles do the same thing then don't worry about it. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. I'd also recommend continuing to expand the article especially the last few sections if possible. Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

KitKat Crescent → Bootham Crescent — Sponsored names should not be used for stadia. See featured articles Valley Parade and Priestfield Stadium, for example. — Dancarney (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support Sponsored names are temporary and should be avioded where there is an established alternative. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no such consensus exists whatsoever; stating so is a very common error. We use the name that is most common, full stop, that's the policy - read WP:COMMONNAME.  See Veltins Arena (AufSchalke now much less common), Emirates Stadium (noone uses Ashburton Grove anymore), Philips Stadion, SAS Arena... Knepflerle (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice that picking the common name works both ways - sometimes the sponsored is most common, sometimes not. We have Veikkausliiga, Tippeligaen, Setanta Sports Cup, Emirates Stadium, FC Red Bull Salzburg but on the other hand it is Baltic League not Triobet Baltic League, Copa Sudamericana not Copa Nissan Sudamericana, CAF Champions League not MTN CAF Champions League, Premier League not Barclays Premier League.  Frequency of usage is the single defining factor, nothing else. Knepflerle (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're basing your answer on WP:COMMONNAME, check out this and this. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly: of course, this should be decided solely by common usage. However in this particular case, there is very little difference between the two options, especially after adding in the results for "Kit Kat Crescent" too ; certainly not a significant difference for such a blunt, inaccurate measuring tool as Google.  Not convincing at all.  Trying Google News for 2007-2008, adding in "York City" to all three to get rid of spurious false results for the street Bootham Crescent, gives 15 for Kit Kat, 42 for Kitkat, 39 for Bootham.  Still no convincing case.
 * Secondly: my point about this repeated bandying around of a non-extant consensus which goes against both practice and one of our core policies is disappointing, and I hope will not be repeated. Knepflerle (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Several of the sponsored names quoted are acceptable for use because there is no alternative. The Emirates Stadium and Setanta Sports Cup were established with sponsored names, and the Philips Stadium is the home ground of PSV Eindhoven, a team set up by Philips. Tippeligaen redirects to Norwegian Premier League and Red Bull Salzburg is owned, rather than sponsored by, Red Bull. Dancarney (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Emirates Stadium [was]... established with sponsored names" - no it was not. The others are acceptable because they are the most common name, not for any other reason.  WP:NAME and WP:COMMONNAME are crystal-clear.
 * Tippeligaen seems to be in the wrong place according to our policies (, +) and should be proposed for moving. Knepflerle (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Like it or not, sponsored names are the official names and more often than not nowadays are the common name. I don't think it's appropriate to title encyclopaedic entries with nicknames instead. A large amount of stadia are now known primarily by their sponsored name alone. See WP:COMMONNAME. Dancru1 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems a line call whether the sponsored name or the non-sponsored name is more common, so better to go with the one that doesn't depend on the sponsorship deal and is therefore less likely to change in the future. Andrewa (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose another example of sponsored name being used on here is Leicester's Walkers Stadium.Skitzo (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - People keep citing the Emirates Stadium as an example of why this article should remain at KitKat Crescent, but they are forgetting that the Emirates has never had any other official name. "Ashburton Grove" was a temporary name used by those who had an overwhelming urge to assign a label to the stadium despite it not having been "christened" at the time. Same goes for the Walkers Stadium, which has also never had another name. Historically, the KitKat Crescent has always been known as Bootham Crescent, and that name will likely be the only constant name that the stadium will ever have. Nestle's sponsorship will eventually end and the stadium will be given another name, resulting in yet another page move. Common usage would seem to indicate that the majority of people still refer to this stadium as Bootham Crescent, so I see no reason why this article should not use the same name. – PeeJay 18:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Common usage would seem to indicate that the majority of people still refer to this stadium as Bootham Crescent" -if there had been proof of that so far, this discussion would have ended. None has been forthcoming. Knepflerle (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I would have been more accurate in saying that sources indicate that "Bootham Crescent" is still just as common a name for the stadium as "KitKat Crescent" is. Regardless, my !vote remains the same. – PeeJay 23:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this from the BBC "Despite its re-branding, the stadium is still commonly referred to as Bootham Crescent." Dancarney (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT sponsor names are the devil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.184.130 (talk • contribs)
 * Support on the same lines as PeeJay. Bootham Crescent is a historical name for a historical stadium. It is impossible to judge this alongside the Emirates or Walkers Stadium. Many grounds change sponsors name so often these days, and fans largely refer to them with the unsponsored version. Peanut4 (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * This discussion is following a very similar line to the Westfalenstadion / Signal Iduna Park requested move. Even though the number of hits for each name was similar, it was decided that the article should be reverted back to its more familiar historical name.  Bettia   (rawr CRUSH!)  08:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.