Talk:Leeds Arena

Untitled section
Recent Changes following Edit War To conclude the edit war, I have shortened the article and removed content that I deem not necessary to improve the balance of the article (following on from criticisms from anonymous above on style of article).

I have added references to back up nearly all statements.

Official comments from SMG reported in the press seem to eradicate the viewpoint that SMG will protect Manchester over Leeds.

I have offered a sentence outlining how some web forum users have concerns that Leeds Arena may lose out because of MEN being bigger(although this is a very very small few and inclusion may be subject to further debate.)

Another YEP article not referenced http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/SMG-boss-promises-Leeds-arena.4085865.jp also hints at strengths of Leeds over Manchester whilst explaining differences.

I concur with edits from incognito and sdeel on standing capacity, as there is no reasonably authentic evidence to suggest super-theatres have larger standing spaces nor is there evidence to suggest this will stop an arena being successful.

There is no factual evidence confirming what the Leeds Arena's standing capacity is. Any numbers are speculation.

There is no evidence to validate these claims on the arena as they are made by a user on a web forum. It seems wiki admins concur with this view following their removals earlier.

I hope the text is now more balanced and is agreeable to all to end this conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Gough (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

Please change Leeds Arena to semi protection. It seems that there is no resolution in sight despite my efforts. The edit warring as such requires resolution through wiki admins. I have added in text that shows the concern proportionate to evidence. Please refer to wiki policy on this. Steve Gough (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

--

To resolve this, the page is now locked by wiki admins. I think the following questions based on comments added from anonymous need answering with authentic, reliable sources to allow an agreeable solution to be reached:

Who determined the arena would have the capacity it does? The article suggests it was the task group from the iniative, the comments added from anonymous suggest SMG determined this to safeguard Manchester. What is the official standing capacity? What evidence is there that super-theatres have larger standing capacities? Is O2 Dublin reliable here, or is O2 Dublin unique compared to other super theatres? Is there evidence from other super theatres across the world on standing capacity that can assist the debate? Is there any comment from industry experts? Is there any evidence that SMG want to protect Manchester over Leeds? Have industry experts said this, or is this speculation? Is there meaningful evidence that the capacity of Leeds Arena will mean it will not host huge events and be unsuccessful? Have industry experts said this?

As already noted, I have added content showing the concerns of anonymous proportionate to the concern within the content. This means the concern is noted as requested. I have also improved the readability of the article and stylised it more factually with more widespread evidence. I think this is an interesting debate and it requires authentic information to assist it to gain resolution. Steve Gough (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. You thick cunt. This article is a mess, poorly written and misleading. And all because some sad little boy doesn't want anything negative published.

Why do you two (probably the same person) use unneccessarily convoluted sentences? You wouldn't write in Latin if you didn't know the language, so stop trying to sound clever. You're not and it's cringeworthy

The council have published the initial specs and there will be 12 rows or retractable seating. You can even see this on the images. You don't have to be a genius to work out what the percentage of seats that will be lost, although I expect it's beyond either of you two shagwits.

And now all SMG have to do is give a few nice soundbites to the localo press and the valid concerns people have can'ty be published!

"What evidence is there that super-theatres have larger standing capacities? "

Un-fucking-believable. You have pompously decided to act as an authority and you don't have a clue what you're talking about. It depends on the number of retractable seats, thick cunt81.107.29.102 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2023

 * 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: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

First Direct Arena → Leeds Arena – The unsponsored original name of the venue is the least confusing when dealing with ever changing corporation sponsorship venues are seemingly being named after.

Leeds Arena provides consistency throughout the encyclopedia and provides consistency to avoid using the advertising name of a building where possible as this is confusing and can cause endless ambiguity when one company sponsors multiple venues world wide.

Other buildings in England are not usually known by the naming rights holder name and are known by the unsponsored name, such as Wembley Arena, Liverpool Arena, Newcastle Arena, etc.

Finally Wikipedia is not an advert for the naming rights holder at any particular moment. The sponsored name should only be used where there is genuinely no unsponsored name which can be reasonably used, such as the home of Bolton Wanderers F.C or most Indy Car races, etc.. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, given that structures with constantly changing sponsor-derived names must have some common name identifier to capture the identity of the structure across all periods. BD2412  T 00:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support move per nom. It seems unlikely that this and the Nottingham case will end separately.  O.N.R.  (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The "avoid sponsored names" argument is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. 162 etc. (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. Revolving door of renames due to "naming rights" sales is already a trainwreck for some venues and will only become worse for all participating. Locations where naming rights have changed several times have clear specific common names for venues. - Darker Dreams (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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.
 * Support per nom. We usually try to avoid sponsorship names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)