Talk:City of Manchester Stadium

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on City of Manchester 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012075828/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-23996972-manchester-model-shows-how-west-ham-can-be-settled-tenants.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-23996972-manchester-model-shows-how-west-ham-can-be-settled-tenants.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620205016/http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Contactus/NewsAndPress/NewsArchive2002-2012/AwardsNews/Press/2004/CityOfManchesterStadiumWinsTheRIBA.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Contactus/NewsAndPress/NewsArchive2002-2012/AwardsNews/Press/2004/CityOfManchesterStadiumWinsTheRIBA.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620205016/http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Contactus/NewsAndPress/NewsArchive2002-2012/AwardsNews/Press/2004/CityOfManchesterStadiumWinsTheRIBA.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Contactus/NewsAndPress/NewsArchive2002-2012/AwardsNews/Press/2004/CityOfManchesterStadiumWinsTheRIBA.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330074151/http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download153.PDF to http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download153.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304120646/http://www.colinspofforth.com/the_runner.htm to http://www.colinspofforth.com/the_runner.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924093112/http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2010-11.pdf to http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2010-11.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924091901/http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2008-09.pdf to http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2008-09.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924091349/http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2007-08.pdf to http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2007-08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924090337/http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/fan-surveys/national-fan-survey-2006-07.pdf to http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/fan-surveys/national-fan-survey-2006-07.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924090337/http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/fan-surveys/national-fan-survey-2006-07.pdf to http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/fan-surveys/national-fan-survey-2006-07.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150605063750/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2012-13/oct/four-clubs-receive-visitfootball-awards.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2012-13/oct/four-clubs-receive-visitfootball-awards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150615120505/http://quaysnews.net/Manchester_City_The_future_of_womens_football-30358.html to http://quaysnews.net/Manchester_City_The_future_of_womens_football-30358.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150615120505/http://quaysnews.net/Manchester_City_The_future_of_womens_football-30358.html to http://quaysnews.net/Manchester_City_The_future_of_womens_football-30358.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150611050708/http://www.footballgroundguide.com/leagues/england/premier-league/etihad-stadium-manchester-city-fc.html to http://www.footballgroundguide.com/leagues/england/premier-league/etihad-stadium-manchester-city-fc.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150611050708/http://www.footballgroundguide.com/leagues/england/premier-league/etihad-stadium-manchester-city-fc.html to http://www.footballgroundguide.com/leagues/england/premier-league/etihad-stadium-manchester-city-fc.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330074151/http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download153.PDF to http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download153.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

City of Manchester Stadium - or Etihad Stadium
Once again there seems to be an incipient edit war on the proper name for the article. This has been round the blocks several times already; but will keep coming back so long as the name 'Etihad Stdium' becomes increasingly established as the only one in current use. My own view is that the time to recognise this change of use in the name of the article is well overdue; but I fully accept that this is an issue on which a number of editors have strong views. So I am just a sounding out of whether a formal request for a name change would now be considered appropriate by other editors?

A few points I suggest as common ground:

- there are a number of established Wikipedia policies on article naming in respect of sponsored sports venues; but an absolute principle that sponsor names should be avoided is not one of them. Unless this has changed since we last discussed the change? seeArticle titles

- nevertheless; there are good grounds for Wikipedia not adopting a sponsor name simply because the stadium owner has entered into a naming deal: firstly, Wikipedia should not be manipulated to promote a commercial sponsorship agenda; secondly, that many such venues do subsequently change their sponsor name, and that then leaves the article title having to be changed; thirdly, that there can be ambiguity when the same sponsor has naming rights to other venues; and fourthly, that sponsor names frequently do not become established as the regular name in general use. Did anyone ever call the Manchester Arena the Phones4U Arena? I see that many editors see delaying adoption of a sponsor name as a useful convention; and broadly, I concur.

- on the other hand; no name or edit in Wikipedia is fixed for all time, if it is not formal Wikipedia policy. There are increasing numbers of sports venues where the Wikipedia article name is indeed the sponsor name; Emirates Stadium, Allianz Arena, King Power Stadium. The most important criteria is how the venue is most usually referred to, while seeking to avoid confusion and ambiguity. Even though it may commonly be less desirable to use a sponsor name; that is very much a second order consideration.

But what do other editors think? TomHennell (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2019

 * 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 to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

City of Manchester Stadium → Etihad Stadium – (see Article titles and Official names and.

It is beyond dispute that the official name for the stadium is ‘Etihad Stadium; and it is beyond dispute also, that this is the most commonly used reference to the stadium in current news media and all other notable sources. Since September 2018, when the Docklands Stadium changed its sponsor name from ‘Etihad Stadium’ to ‘Marvel Stadium, the name ‘Etihad Stadium has been applied to only one football stadium – this one. So the official name ‘Etihad Stadium’ is now “recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources”. Which clearly qualifies it to be the title of the Wikipedia article. The question then arises; is this also true of the current name ‘City of Manchester Stadium”; which was indeed the official name for the stadium when originally constructed for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002? It is rightly recognised as a good Wikipedia principle: “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.” The current article title has the virtue of still being unambiguous; but its qualifications under the other two criteria above; ‘recognizable to readers’ and ‘consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources’ is no longer apparent. In an internet search of current news sources (which Wikipedia guidance proposes as the most reliable comparative assessment), ‘Etihad Stadium’ returns 537,000 citations, against 6,800 for ‘City of Manchester Stadium”. Moreover, around half of these ‘City of Manchester Stadium’ search returns are specific to UEFA or FIFA sponsored competitions; and hence may be discounted from consideration, as both UEFA and FIFA notoriously rename sponsored stadiums in their publications if the usual name clashes with commercial sponsorship of UEFA and FIFA competitions; even where no other name is  recognised (and the sponsored name commonly stands as the Wikipedia article title). Most of the other search returns for ‘City of Manchester Stadium’ are historic; applying the old stadium name in recalling events ten years and more ago, when the stadium retained its original title. This is far from the first time this particular name change has been proposed; and formerly objectors have maintained that a general convention applies in Wikipedia, not to use sponsored names for football venues and stadiums. No such convention is found though in the “naming conventions” page. There is a note on Official names ; “Official names of sponsored sports teams, tournaments and venues change whenever a sponsorship agreement begins or ends.”. This identifies concern at changes in sponsor as a sound reason to prefer the use of the most common name over an official sponsor name. But this should not apply here; as ‘Etihad Stadium’ is – by a wide margin – the most common current name. TomHennell (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't have a problem with new-build stadiums such as the Emirates Stadium or Walkers Stadium (now King Power Stadium) being named after sponsorship as there is no antecedent name. However, the City of Manchester Stadium was built without a sponsor for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and didn't have any sponsor until 2011. I can understand the WP:COMMONNAME rationale but it is already made clear in the opening sentence of the article and with a logo in the infobox that it is also known as the Etihad Stadium therefore I don't think a move is necessary. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. Though your idea is good in principle, there's no way I can support this, as your argument is primarily based on the official name of the venue.  ONR  (talk)  23:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Old Naval Rooftops but in addition to the official name, it also seems to be the most commonly used name, as seen in Google news results comparing the two titles (and adding Manchester to the search for proposed one to ensure accurate results).--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * helpful if you could expand on your main pont; the guidance note states "Official English names ... should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used." are you proposing that 'Etihad Stadium' is not the most common name used? TomHennell (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The website refers to it as the Etihad Stadium.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the long-standing convention that we don't use sponsored names where a non-sponsored one exists. Number   5  7  08:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you reference this 'long-standing convention" within one of the categories ? TomHennell (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because it's not an official convention – no-one's ever bothered attempting to formalise it (as far as I'm aware) because this is a relatively minor thing and people have generally respected past consensus. But I assume you know this anyway and are just trying to make a point of some kind? Number   5  7  09:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Conventions are never official, if they were, they wouldn't be conventions. Nevertheless, this convention doesn't exist anywhere. TrailBlzr (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand how Wikipedia works if that's your view on naming conventions. And as confirmed by GiantSnowman below, this convention does indeed exist; if you want further evidence, it was referenced by many editors in the last RM for this article a few years ago. Number   5  7  21:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, all I'd really need to believe this convention exists are enough examples where it was decided that pages where the overwhelmingly most common name should not be at the official title because it is branded. Mind pointing me their way?--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See below. Cheers, Number   5  7  10:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as both the common and official name. As far as I can see, there is not some sort of guideline that prohibits using branded names even when they are accurate and most common. Indeed, convention seems to be to go with longstanding common names, as the proposal suggests.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 09:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as above. We do not use sponsored names for stadiums if there are alternatives. GiantSnowman 09:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:COMMONNAME TrailBlzr (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Giant or User:Number 57, is there another example that could demonstrate this convention? Where we choose not to use a branded name even when it appears to be both the commonly used and official title? I'm not finding many, if any, where we choose not to use the most commonly used name in reliable sources because it is branded.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Two that immediately come to mind are the Falmer Stadium (probably more widely known by its sponsored title "Amex") and Kirklees Stadium (John Smith's Stadium). Number   5  7  10:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Thanks Number 57, but could you expand on "probably more widely known"? In the case of the Etihad Stadium, the official/sponsor name appears to be the only name now regularly in use in notable news sources (excepting where FIFA and UEFA sponsorship deals constrain names used in their competitions).  Are these other articles also applying a name that is proportionally so uncommon in current news media as 'City of Manchester Stadium'?  Can you give some relative counts? TomHennell (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick search of the BBC website shows around 2,300 relevant uses of "Amex" and just over 100 uses of "Falmer Stadium", most of which are from a few years ago. Number   5  7  11:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For my club there's also 'Northern Commercials Stadium / Valley Parade' (which is a Featured Article). GiantSnowman 12:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Sponsored names, by their very definition, are temporary. It is therefore better to title articles about sponsored venues with an unsponsored name, if any exists. This is borne out by Bootham Crescent, which had a five-year sponsorship by Nestlé and was known as KitKat Crescent for the duration; however, the article correctly remained at Bootham Crescent, which is what the stadium is again referred to as now that the sponsorship has lapsed. In cases like Emirates Stadium or King Power Stadium, where the venue has never had an unsponsored name, it of course makes sense to stick to the most recent one, but this is not one of those cases. – PeeJay 08:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As some have said, this is mainly due to the sponsorship reasons that most of these articles don't have the sponsorship name. If this does past through, what is not stopping someone from requesting that Bellerive Oval be changed to Blundstone Arena as that is the current name for the stadium. Or recently, Docklands Stadium being sponsored by Marvel. This can easily see problems arise if it's successful. Matt294069 (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is currently the only active 'Etihad Stadium' with an article, at some point Etihad may take over the naming rights at say Yankee Stadium. Then the argument would start as to which is the primary topic, best to leave it as a disambiguation page. While the Ethiad sponsorship is long term (until 2021), as others have stated, even if renewed it will come to an end at some point. Bromptop (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stadia mancity 682x 113606a.jpg