Talk:Progressive Field

Name change
I have heard from a Jacobs Field employee that the field will undergo a name change following the 2006 baseball season. Should this detail be added to the article, though it is not yet firm? Robert K S 19:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I added a line about the approaching expiration of the naming rights. - EurekaLott 02:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Robert K S 02:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The page on ballparksofbaseball.com contrdicts that claim.  Are you sure the guy works there?  The Technodrome&#39;s Toilet 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bug Game"
This should be retained as it was a field condition, not a event atributed to an athlete. It's like the wind at the Meadowlands or Candlestick Park. It should be associated with the venue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be appropriate for an article on that particular game or that particular ALDS series. A mention of midges (absent a mention of the ball game) might be appropriate for an article on the fauna of Lake Erie.  But this really isn't a "field condition" unless you can show that midges regularly invade Jacobs Field during ball games.  I've therefore re-removed that material.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it only happened once, but it happened in a one run game on national television. Besides there is some evidence they are common in Cleveland "Midges like to breed on warm fall nights near bodies of water. Cleveland’s Jacobs Field is right alongside Lake Erie. Also, they’re attracted to light, and a Major League baseball park has a lot of those burning during a night game. Midges are a common sight in Cleveland on June and July evenings, but not a welcome on in October the Yankees." http://www.smm.org/buzz/buzz_tags/midges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first statement, The Bug Game should have been moved it needed its own catigory.Thewiseeye3400 (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC

 * I've added a request for comments to get a third opinion on the appropriateness of mentioning the "bug game" in this article. To whoever visits here to take a look at this, the above discussion pretty much sums up our positions.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 07:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

RFCxxx template in article
I have removed the RFCxxx template from the article, RFCxxx templates should be placed on discussion pages, not in articles. See RFC Instructions no 2 Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the disputed article's talk page and 3 Place the template at the top of the new section DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry for the confusion. The instructions on the individual templates' pages suggest that you're supposed to add the template to the article itself.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

New name
It appears that the stadium will be getting a new name. The Plain Dealer is reporting that it will be called Progressive Field. We'll need to move the page, but it I think it would be wise to wait until the name is officially announced. - Eureka Lott 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there should be a more concrete reference to attach to the page before a move actually happens. The blog section of the Plain Dealer's website tends to be a bit faster and looser with news reports, and there's always the slim chance that there could be a hoax involved.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of activity on the article in the past day. Some edits replaced instances of Jacobs Field with Progressive Field, but this change left some nonsensical passages, such as the discussion of renaming in the lead, which took on the incorrect implication of a renaming away from Progressive Field.  Let's wait until the name change is official--not just officially announced but actually in effect--to perform the article move and the search-and-replace, performed intelligently so as not to leave any such non-sequiturs.  Until then it suffices to note that the ballpark is about to be renamed.  (Incidentally, I was surprised to return to this talk page and discover that I had originally brought up the issue of the name change some months ago.  The skepticism my remark met seems pretty silly now.) Robert K S (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three cheers for people not reading the talk page before making major changes to the article, huh? -- Dachannien TalkContrib 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we need to remove "The Prog" from the page. It can't have a nickname already :) Jeez. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I've heard 'The Prog' tossed around, but I hardly think it's worthy of saying it's the nickname at this point.-Colslax (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon my move and edits, but why does The Jake need a corporate alias? Perhaps the Indians are doing this for the money.  In olden times, stadiums were named for the team (i.e. Angel or Dodger Stadium) or the location (San Diego Stadium/Jack Murphy Stadium).  Now, teams are naming there stadiums after huge corporations for the sake of advertising.  2008BaseballFan (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of stadiums have corporate names, including Quicken Loans Arena which is next door. At least it isn't Preparation H Park.THD3 (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Like it or not (personally I hate it) it's nothing new. Corporate names on stadiums date back to, at least, the 1950's.  Just be glad the uniforms don't have large ads on them like major league level sport teams in other parts of the world yet.  But I'm sure it's coming. StrayKat99 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Aesthetically, I agree with you completely. I still call the basketball arena "The Gund", and it's been years since they changed the name.  However, Wikipedia has to stay NPOV, and that means that it portrays an unbiased representation of the facts as they are listed in verifiable sources.  In this case, that means that the new name for the ballpark has to be the context the article primarily uses, though it should also discuss the "Jacobs Field" name and its history.  Please, let's not bicker and argue about 'oo killed 'oo have edit wars over the article name based on individual opinions.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the epotime is advertising, what's next? Naming Fenway Park "Fleet Bank Field?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.17.129 (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Corporate sponsorship is common. Is there not a Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland?  And was there not a Fleet Garden in Boston before it was renamed as TD Banknorth Garden?THD3 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Only recently, you're talking about the Gund Arena. Besides, these deals usually don't work.  Angel Stadium and Ballpark in Arlington's corporate nicknames didn't last too long.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.17.129 (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm "talking" about Quicken Loans Arena, formerly known as Gund Arena.THD3 (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Quicken Loans is owned by Dan Gilbert and he also owns the cavaliers. It is just like Gilbert naming the arena Gilbert Arena. These are the same standards that are used with the old naming patterns. The difference is that Progressive does not own the Cleveland Indians. Progressive paid the county millions for naming rights while cutting jobs at the same time. 71.186.99.94 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit history has vanished
What happened to the edit history of this article? There are now four edits in the edit history, and the version of the article seems to be older than the one I was reading and working on earlier in the day. Did User:2008BaseballFan do something that destroyed the article's edit history? Robert K S (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was moved to Jacobs Field, then some version was copy-pasted back, and you made Jacobs Field a redirect. Tell me where it should all be, and I'll put the pieces back together. Gimmetrow 04:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I put the old Jacobs Fields logo back on the page. In response to the second name placed on this baseball field, User:Gimmetrow deleted the Prog/Jake's page history and all of the Prog/Jake's article revisions.  Now it looks as if the page was newly created again.  There is nothing I can do further about this "naming rights deal".  2008BaseballFan (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User:2008BaseballFan moved the page back to Jacobs Field and reverted nearly all of the recent edits prior to making changes. User:Gimmetrow repaired most of the damage, and I restored the page to its last stable version. I think we should be in good shape until the next joker comes along - Eureka Lott 04:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All the article revisions from both Jacobs and Progressive are still in the edit history. For instance, here are the edits 2008BaseballFan made, though for some reason the editor started from an older version with minor changes. Gimmetrow 04:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like everything is back in order now. Thanks to all involved. Robert K S (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Anachronistic name use?
In the sentence "Progressive Field contributed to the revitalization of downtown Cleveland. Opened in 1994 as the new home of the Cleveland Indians, whom had formerly shared Cleveland Stadium with the NFL's Cleveland Browns.", Progressive Field should be changed back to Jacobs Field as that was the park's name during 1994 and the "revitalization of downtown Cleveland" which the sentence refers to.--68.73.75.201 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A more thorough rephrasing of the sentence should resolve any ambiguity. If my changes are still problematic, please let me know.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JacobsFieldLogo150.PNG
Image:JacobsFieldLogo150.PNG 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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Prog"
Where did this nickname come from? I didn't think there were any major nicknames yet. I've also heard the "Pro" used, but just in colloquial speech. Spencer T♦C 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have heard both of those but I still hear "The Jake" far more often as either the pro or prog. the nick name should remain the jake until a new nickname is used more often (as the case with the Q/gund), which I don't believe will happen for a long time. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Prog" is gaining usage; I see one instance on the Plain Dealer website: http://www.cleveland.com/goingout/index.ssf/2008/03/cleveland_indians_fans_line_up.html .  We're probably not yet ready to change the nickname, but it is something to watch. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up, I have not heard the Prog once in the past couple months. The Jake is still used frequently by Clevelanders and Indians fans. Frank Anchor Talk to me  02:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, in the last few days, I have heard both Chuck Galeti (WOIO) and Tony Rizzo (WJW) use the term "the Pro". Mapsax (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC) (Edit 1:) In addition, anchor Tim White (WKYC) has used "Pro Field" recently. Mapsax (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (Edit 2:) If I heard correctly, add Mark "Munch" Bishop (WKNR). Mapsax (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I was at an Indians game recently. I didn't hear "the Prog", but I heard "the Pro" used several times during the day.  This was not by the media, but by the attendees.THD3 (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't matter what you call it -- Jacobs Field, The Jake, Progressive Field, The Prog...." We now have "The Prog" in writing in what I see as a reliable source, plus the analogy of Jacobs Field:The Jake::Progressive Field:The Prog showing that "The Jake" is as obsolete as "Jacobs Field", so I'm going to change the nickname in the article. "The Jake" will survive there as historical mention. I would surmise that the only ones left calling it "The Jake" still don't recognize the name change to Progressive Field. Mapsax (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

2014 followup
I note that the above 2011 article has been used as the citation (subsequently copyedited) for the continued existence of the "Jake" nickname; I'm not sure that it's appropriate for that due to its age. Personally (original research) I haven't heard "the Jake" referring to the ballpark since the name change in quite some time from anyone. Mapsax (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think in the bigger picture, it's really not that big of a deal. Since we have a legit source for the nicknames that's from fairly recently (i.e. it's not something from 10 or more years ago), that's good enough. If needs be, it can simply be edited down the road to reflect that it's a former nickname or not widely used anymore. Nicknames tend to be tricky just because they often aren't used in reliable sources, even though they could be quite common colloquially. Even so, most nicknames are trivial facts at best. From a purely anecdotal perspective of my own experience going to games, I have actually never heard anyone call it "The Pro" and "The Prog" was something I heard rarely in the first seasons it was renamed Progressive Field (in a "what do we call it now?" sense). Most often, I still hear "The Jake" or the general "the ballpark" on the radio. Myself, I usually just call it "Progressive Field"; no nickname. Was the same with "Jacobs Field" (never got into "The Jake"). If only the nickname were as clear-cut as Quicken Loans Arena with "The Q", which can be found in several sources, including the arena's own website "theqarena.com". As for "The Jake", here's a link for t-shirts you can buy with that nickname:
 * http://www.cleclothingco.com/product/it-will-always-be-the-jake-mens-womens-crew
 * What this article does need is for the mention of nicknames to be added into the body of the article. The lead shouldn't have any information that is unique to the lead itself; it should summarize the article, so everything in the lead should be found elsewhere in the article in at least slightly more detail (can also be where the citations are). --JonRidinger (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The link that you provided echoes what I said at the end of my 2011 comment above: A small set of people will always insist on the old name for something for nostalgic purposes, regardless of how obsolete. I think that a nickname identified in a WP article should reflect its use by the general population within the topic's scope (fans and locals in this case), not by a select few hangers-on. To me that's a misrepresentation which is why I've been so insistent. Yes, it's a relatively small issue, but it's one that I think deserves at least a little attention. Mapsax (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's either still in use or it isn't. At the very least, it was a longtime nickname, so it should be mentioned regardless. The fact that a company sells shirts with the "I Still Call it The Jake" phrase means they're making money on the item, even though the park has been named Progressive Field now for 7 seasons. I've seen a good amount of those shirts and similar "The Jake" shirts when I've gone to games this year (and I regularly hear it in conversation), compared with almost no references to "The Pro" or "The Prog", and certainly no merchandise. And there are additional designs from other companies that use "The Jake", which suggests it's not some kind of fringe or few-in-numbers group:
 * Homage
 * Fresh Brewed Tees
 * CLE Clothing
 * All of those constitute third-party sources that verify "The Jake" is still in some kind of general use, enough to cause multiple Cleveland-area clothing companies to create and offer t-shirts, yet the reference to "The Pro" and "The Prog" is also from 2011 and very few references can be found that don't simply quote the lead of this article. The reality is that the ballpark does not have a well-established nickname like "The Friendly Confines", "The Shoe", or even "The Q", even among locals. FirstEnergy Stadium is the same way: it's most often referred to as "The Stadium", the same way Cleveland Stadium was. The fact that finding reliable sources for the nicknames has proven so difficult is a testament to the reality of their limited use. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If there isn't a clear common nickname for the ballpark, then perhaps the "nickname" parameter should be removed from the infobox altogether and the nicknames only mentioned in passing in the article body with no specifics as to which has been used when, only a cite of the PD article. As for the old nickname, Progressive Field isn't unique in the aspect of "It will always be [old name] to me" – do a search for Comiskey Park in Chicago for another example. For that matter, look at highway names and numbers that have been changed. While the "nickname" parameter is not well defined in the Infobox Stadium description, I believe that it should be used to list those names that reflect the current name of the sports venue in question. Mapsax (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one option. I think the way it is now is acceptable, though, other than the need to mention it in the body of the article instead of just in the lead. I personally don't think "The Pro" or "The Prog" have any real usage to qualify them as nicknames based on anecdotal evidence and the lack of widespread sources, but "The Jake" clearly still does. Yes, there will always be people who refer to a stadium by a previous name, but a previous name (Jacobs Field, Comiskey Park, Browns Stadium, Cowboys Stadium, etc.) is just that: a previous name, not a nickname. A nickname can be completely unrelated to the current name, such as "Jerry's World", "The Friendly Confines", and "The Shoe" (or the longer "The Horseshoe"). Even if Wrigley Field or Ohio Stadium were given corporate names, those nicknames would continue on since they aren't related to the formal name; "Jerry's World" continues even with the change to AT&T Stadium. The fact that "The Jake" is from the previous name is largely irrelevant in terms of why it should be included (of course, mentioning where that nickname comes from is important, though). The fact that there are multiple third-party sources using it show that it's still in use (how widespread is unknown), and likely will be for some time. What would REALLY be helpful is if a local media outlet did some kind of survey and article about the nickname(s)... --JonRidinger (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Simultaneous construction not right
The statement, "The Gateway ballpark and arena were the first sports facilities in the United States to be constructed simultaneously at the same location." is inaccurate. Arrowhead Stadium and (then) Royals Stadium were constructed at the same time with Arrowhead opening in Aug. 1972 and Royals Stadium opening in Apr. 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.178.39 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

2006/2007 re-sale of the name
... The other reference hints to me that the Jacobs family enjoyed another year "in the sun" free of charge. An agency was hired in 2007 to recruit a new sponsor. Perhaps the city(?) was fortunate or far-seeing to hold out. The team enjoyed remarkable success in 2007 which must have increased the price.
 * ref name="Bloom1"> Sessa, Danielle Indians to Sell Naming Rights to Ballpark, Hire IMG Bloomberg, September 19, 2007 (accessed July 19, 2010)

I guess this episode must be worth more coverage here. --P64 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Good article preparation
I'm working on preparing this article for GAN, if anyone would like to help, feel free to contribute.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering about the stadium capacity lists. Is there a need to have the information in both the infobox and the table? - Eureka Lott 21:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking that too, I'm just going to remove the chart with the capacities.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was considering to review this article but would likely quick fail it (I am not an experience GA reviewer, so you can take my comments simply as advice).
 * I would recommend putting a date in the caption for the Jacobs Field logo (for example, "Jacobs Field logo (1900-2000)".
 * ✅--Astros4477 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Be sure to add all relevant details to references. Several of the citations have simply a title and retrieval date. A reviewer is also going to want to know consistent details for references, but as of now, there are several which lack even as much as the work or publisher info. For newspapers where a publisher is known, it should be listed (I believe the PD is published by Advance Media). Location for one of the books cited should be "New York, NY" rather than "New York City," unless inside the flap of the book it actually states it that way. Ref #18 seems to be an excerpt from a book but one would never know it by the details provided in the article. #20 commits the cardinal sin of referencing: not stating where you read it. #31 and #21 don't match in mark-up (one article date appears in parentheses, the other does not). Is #38 considered a reliable source?
 * the book ref.
 * Ref 20 I don't see the problem with this one. Maybe I'm missing something?
 * Ref 31 and 21 They're both using the same ref template. I think one is in parenthesis because it has the authors name, the other one doesn't have the authors name in the article.
 * Ref 38 I'd say leave it and see what the reviewer says.--Astros4477 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead states "and in recent years" which should probably be worded so the lead doesn't become dated. Also, if it's infrequently called "The Pro" or "The Prog," I would probably not place this in the lead. Lastly, the lead should be a summary of info. described in more detail later in the article, yet I see some info. is found only in the lead (no. of luxury boxes, for example...perhaps the body could list more details why and how it was decided so many luxury boxes would be built?).
 * I'm not sure where else the nickname sentence could go in the article. I fixed the luxury box section.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess my isn't with the nickname being mentioned in the lead was more so because it's stated the nickname is "infrequently" used. If the nickname isn't too well known/used, then I would argue it would then not be pertinent enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. I would put it in the Progressive Field subsection (especially since only one of the two nicknames is in the info box, rather than both, it makes the argument to take it from the lead stronger, IMO). Zepppep (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The ASG mention is a bit redundant. I would simply state "the first ASG..." rather than stating it was held at the Field in '97 and then in a separate sentence telling the reader it was the first time. That entire subsection has three distinct paragraphs that don't seem related in any way. The first para talks about the opening; the second, ASG and post-season play; the third about one postseason where bugs descended upon the field.
 * the ASG info. I think the paragraphs are fine because it's a history section and it's stating the history during the Jacobs Field era.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Progressive Field subsection seems to suggest the low attendance was a result of warm weather; I would probably argue whether that was the true cause or not.
 * I assume you live in the Cleveland area, I think the info on it being the warmest winter is relevant. My family went to the first one but we never got a chance last years because it was so warm. --Astros4477 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So the event wasn't cancelled due to low attendance? I believe the Penguins had to reschedule a game from the afternoon to the night one year (2011?) during the Winter Classic because the temps during the day time were too warm for ice and they were worried about the conditions of the ice, hence the several hours delay. However, the attendance was unaffected. Pittsburgh will continue to have such games in the future. Zepppep (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * From an organizational standpoint, I would say it's a bit lacking in this regard. I would think it would make sense to put "structure" and "design" paragraphs with the "planning and construction" paragraphs. Additionally, I would put all of this towards the beginning of the article, since the building of the stadium itself would come before any ASGs, games, or post-season games. Just my two cents! Zepppep (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Astros4477 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done. Looks like the article had no problem passing upon its first review. :) Congrats, everyone! Zepppep (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Featured article preparation
I now want to work on getting this article to FAC. I've looked at other stadium FAs but what does everybody think should be added to this article for it to qualify for FAC?--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 03:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In a quick glance, the first area of attention is the lead. The lead should summarize the entire article and right now it only mentions its general location and the issue of its name. I also wouldn't have "The Jake" bolded, but instead have it in quotes since it's a nickname, not an official name.  Other things to watch out for: abbreviations like "NFL". Even though most will know what NFL means, it's always good to start with the official name. For that instance, I'd have "...which they shared with the Cleveland Browns of the National Football League." I'd also like to see more mention of the domed stadium option (including the fact that it was proposed for the same site Gateway is on) that was defeated, as well as the other proposal known as "Hexatron". The mention of the architecture needs to be expanded a bit too as it's not very clear or detailed (also watch out for "its" or "it's") about how it really fits in with the area around it and why certain design elements were used (such as the exposed steel and vertical light towers).  Also, the article linked for "retro-modern ballparks" has Progressive Field as the first of that genre. Oriole Park at Camden Yards is considered "retro-classic", based on the exterior.  Progressive Field is the second "retro" ballpark. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

One proposed clarification
Hi all -- I work with Populous, the architecture firm formerly known as HOK Sport Venue Event that designed Progressive Field. We noticed the listed architect still says "HOK Sport." Could you please clarify this (the text correctly links to the Populous page) along the lines of other stadium pages such as Camden Yards? For example, the text could read "Populous (formerly known as HOK Sport)". I ask because another unrelated "HOK Sports + Recreation + Entertainment" has entered the market since we rebranded as Populous, leading to some confusion. Thanks for your consideration. Bewarethephog (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This comes up every so often. The wikilinks for HOK Sport and HOK Sport Venue Event are redirects to Populous (company), so if people click them, they'll go to the article on Populous. My understanding is the general precedent on instances like this seems to be to use whatever name a given firm/subject was known by at the time an event occurred (in this case the design of the ballpark) since documents and other sources from the time will list the former name. This also helps guard against any future name changes without having to go through and change every instance, say, if Populous would ever change their name again in the future. The same issue comes up for stadiums themselves because of naming rights. For instance, the article on the Indians 1995 season lists the home field as Jacobs Field even though the name has obviously changed since then. Jacobs Field is a redirect to Progressive Field, so if readers want to know more, they'll end up at the right place. No need to include "(now known as Progressive Field)".


 * One option that may be possible is to create a category for all ballparks designed by the company, such as Category:Ballparks designed by Populous or Category:Sports venues designed by Populous or something like that, though I'm not sure if that has been tried before. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, Jon. The worry for us is the possibility of the user not clicking through and attributing that architecture work to the new unrelated HOK Sport company, but we understand where editors are coming from. It's tough keeping up with all the stadium name changes. I'm not aware of the category idea being done before either. Would you be willing to try? --Bewarethephog (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am marking this request as answered seeing as an alternative had been suggested. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)