Talk:Venues of the 2015 Pan American and Parapan American Games

File:Acc 3 (1).jpg Nominated for Deletion
-- I don;t understand why this user can't read properly. This source Confirms the 2015 wheelchair tennis venue as being in UTSC.

"This Request for Proposal (“RFP”) is an invitation by the Department of Design & Construction Management and the Department of Athletics & Recreation at the University of Toronto Scarborough on behalf of the Governing Council of the University of Toronto (the “University”) in conjunction with the Toronto 2015 Pan Am/ParaPan Am Organizing Committee (“TO2015”) to prospective proponents to submit proposals for the provision prime architectural design services for a new outdoor tennis venue located at the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus (valley playing fields), as further described in Part 2 – The Deliverables (the “Deliverables”). The University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC) will host the Wheelchair tennis activities as part of the Pan/ParaPan Am games being hosted by Toronto in 2015."

Its not rocket science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.228.14 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Also the official website "he CPC staff also viewed from the outside the venues under construction: The CIBC Pan Am/Parapan Am Athletes’ Village, the CIBC Pan Am/Parapan Am Athletics Stadium (athletics), Milton Pan Am/Parapan Am Velodrome (track cycling), Markham Pan Am/Parapan Am Centre (table tennis), University of Toronto Scarborough Tennis Centre  (wheelchair tennis)


 * Alright, so go ahead and get that source cited in the article, which is all I asked you to do. It would have taken a lot less time doing that rather than whining about it here. Next time, cut the chase and get to the point. Cheers. EelamStyleZ // TALK 05:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

to Magnolia677
hi, the links to the other wikipedias are wrong. this article is about the venues. and now these links are centralized on Wikidata. that are the two reasons why i removed them from the article. --Deansfa (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And as I stated discretely on your talk page: "Thank you for your edit to this article. My edit summary stated: "unexplained content removal". Even a brief edit summary like "these wikilinks are not related to this article" helps avoid misunderstanding. Thanks!" Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * hi Magniolia, you are right, I should have add a brief summary to my edit. I'm sorry about that. All my best. --Deansfa (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Splitting of the article
Is there any objection into splitting this article into two? (One for the Pan American and one for the Parapan American Games?). The reason I ask is because, the tables with the venues are extremely wide (and would require people to scroll to see everything). By splitting it, the scrolling would be removed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to have done it backwards by splitting it first then asking for consensus, not to mention that a lot of Parapan Am sports were removed by you and yet to be placed into its own article. Then you also have to move the page to rename because the page name no longer reflects venues for both Pan Am and Parapan Am Games. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was editing with the intention of including both on one page, however for the reasons listed above I decided to remove the Parapan sports. I have not placed the Parapan venues into its own article yet, because I am waiting to see if there would be any objections doing so. I first approached the help channel to have this paged moved (because I am unable to move it to just Venues of the 2015 Pan American Games). I was suggested there to first open a discussion first before proceeding with asking for a move. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that we shouldn't split it into two. Other pages like Venues of the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics and Venues of the 2016 Summer Olympics and Paralympics keep both sports' venues all on the same page and we should strive for consistency across the board. Moreover, removing contents without a clear timeline of when to restore it is considered vandalism. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose for reasons of consistency, as OhanaUnited mentioned. Please add the Parapan Venues back in. Grande (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I wasn't aware it was vandalism. Rest assured that was not the intention either. I will add it back right now. Thanks. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we have it added back now? It's been 5 days since the content was initially removed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Its been put back as of a couple days ago . Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll divide the columns back into Pan Am & Parapan Am sports shortly. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As in putting all the info in one table? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, since the venue name, capacity, and reference are all identical. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 23:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To me it looks better separate, because the capacities are aligned with the different sports. For example, the Hershey Centre will have a diff capacity for the Parapan American Games then the Pan American Games. The remaining Parapan American capacities will be disclosed in March according to the organizing committee. The CIBC Aquatics Centre has three different capacities and they were aligned with what sports they were hosting, and now that's not the case. The Markham Centre is supposed to list 2,000 twice (to show that there are two different venues within the facility, one for badminton/table tennis and one for water polo). Can you fix these please? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Venue Names
I think the venue names being used for the games (even if they are just for the games) should take priority, because that is the subject of the article after all. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This was discussed here and consensus was not reached. I have cited WP:MOSLINK and WP:LINKCLARITY as reasons not to use misleading pipes on Pan Am Games-related internal links.  If others have some policy or past consensus which indicates the contrary, please share it.  If not, leave the links alone, and add a parentheses next to the real article name stating ("renamed 'Foo' for the Pan Am Games").  Magnolia677 (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If no consensus is reached, how can you come to the conclusion that your preferred version is right? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've referenced two Wikipedia policies that seem to support my position. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to reach consensus before reverting. I don't know where else to post a discussion, any ideas? The fact is the information is WRONG on the article because the names being used by organizers are being omitted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition it is not being used consistently, especially in the venue template. SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should links to venues of the 2015 Pan Am Games be piped?
Some of the venues of the 2015 Pan Am Games will be temporarily changed to reflect the name selected by a corporate sponsor. For example, "Tim Hortons Field" will temporarily be renamed "CIBC Hamilton Pan Am Soccer Stadium". Should the links to each venue's article be piped (eg. CIBC Hamilton Pan Am Soccer Stadium), or should the link reflect the actual name of the article, and an explanation be provided in parentheses and/or subscript, eg. Tim Hortons Field (temporarily renamed "CIBC Hamilton Pan Am Soccer Stadium")? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed, and in my mind settled, at Talk:2015 Pan American Games. Recent precedence has been to pipe out the commercial name and use the name of the venue as used by the organizing committee (see talk page for examples). This does not go against WP:LINKCLARITY, which was used as a reason to remove one such link, as it states the link "should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context" and in the sense of the venue is very clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus was not reached at that discussion, and there were no reliable examples provided of past consensus or of policy to the contrary of WP:MOSLINK and WP:LINKCLARITY. A wider discussion may yield consensus.  Magnolia677 (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm ignorant about all this sort of thing. (1) For the duration of an event, is a stadium name sometimes changed to include the name of a sponsor of the event? (2) Is a stadium name that includes a name of a sponsor (possibly one funding the construction of a stadium) sometimes changed to remove the name of this non-event sponsor? (3) Is a name sometimes changed to substitute the name of one sponsor for another (possibly combining 1 and 2)? Should we be reacting to these different situations in different ways? Thincat (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Big events organizing committees usually adopt neutral names for the venues hosting the games, names related to the location of the venues or/and their use in the games such as Ayhletics Stadium or Cereminies Stadium (use) or São Paulo Stadium (location). They do it as the naming rights holders are not necessarily one of the events sponsor and as the events are something much bigger than the naming rights of a venue, you would have either a situation of the naming rights holder gaining a ruge free publicity if his name is kept by the organized comitee or the naming rights holder would be required/forced to provide a huge sponsorship as compesation for the big publicity witch it may not be able to or simply may not want to. Of course that when the venues are inclueded in a bid to host any sort of games/competition it's is done under the agreement, more than that, with encouragement of the naming rights holder. And they know well the conditions involved in this kind of events. Even tough the commercial name is not used, just having the venue in those big events, even under neutral names, brings a good amount of publicity for the venue per se and indirect publicity to the naming rights holder, they happily agree with the organizing committees terms on it. As for witch name we should use in wikipedia, I'm not sure. The organising committee names are temporary and for that specific event only, so the common name would be more relevant. But on the other side, those are official names for the event and are the names in every official media for the event, the website, news, reports. So using the commercial names could produce confusion on the readers as they see other names on the sources provided. Piping those names here would be the easiest and more efficient way of linking those two sets of names as a reader curious about those unfamiliar venues names would be able to easily discover their commercial/common name just by holding the mouse cursor over the link or clicking on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.56.51.52 (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. In the case given as an example ("CIBC Hamilton Pan Am Soccer Stadium") it does not seem to be a neutral name but one firm shouldering out another. All the same I think it makes sense to have the temporary name in text piping to the article for the "permanent" name. I don't see why the article needs further elaboration. This discussion has been helpful to me and in future I shall be avoiding Tim Hortons restaurants and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Thincat (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I din't know that CIBC is an acronym for a bank. They are in fact not using neutral names in Toronto. My experience with this kind of situation comes from Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup. As far as I can remember those two major events use neutral names for venues. They usually use traditional common names when they are not related with naming rights, commercial brands. Otherwise they use names related to the location or use of the venue. I remember that FIFA covered all kinds of advertisement on the stadiums with naming rights agreements last year. I forgot to cite another possible conflict situation. Some times it happens that the naming rights holders of a venue is a direct competitor of a major sponsor of the event being hosted there. An awkward situation. The sponsor won't be willing to pay millions and yet see its very competitor being heavily promoted by the same event. I imagine that the balance of force between naming rights holders and venues owners (in many cases, local governments) span through a wide range. I remember news about 1994 FIFA World Cup that some NFL stadiums considered to host the tournament refused and that their refusal was related with naming rights issues. But In some situations the naming rights holder is enthusiastic in accepting this kind of agreement. In others they may be nearly forced to accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.56.51.52 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant question here is the principal of astonishment, and a general concern for usefulness of the articles. I think the current solution of simply using the Pan-am approved name, and linking to the article is less than desirable.  It isn't immediately clear to the user that Exhibition Stadium is a temporary name for BMO Fields, and unless the intro graph of BMO fields includes some clarification that it has had a different name for a previous event, I can imagine a lot of confusion from the user. Since it's unlikely that BMO fields is going to have room in it's intro paragraph to explain that for one week in 2015 it had a different name, it's probably for the best that the link to BMO fields have the explanation on this side of the link.  There are two options, we could either say  Exhibition Stadium (aka BMO Fields) or we could use BMO Fields (Temporarily renamed Exhibition Stadium).  I don't have a strong preference for either one, although all things the same, the 'principal of astonishment' would be clicking on BMO Fields should take you to the article BMO Fields. Pjjmd (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2015 Pan American Games Aquatics Venue.jpg