Talk:Perth Stadium

Scrapped

The stadium plan has been scrapped. Perth Now media release Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 06:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They have been revived - I've entered new information about the Burswood site. Edelmand (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Perth Stadium → New Perth stadium – No official name for the stadium has been determined yet, and there isn't really a common name, either. "New Perth stadium" has a precedent with other articles in the proposed stadiums category, and might assist readers in searching for the article. I♦A 07:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but mainly to remove the capitalisation/common name. Moondyne (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - An article with the word "new" in it is almost automatically violating the principles of WP:DATED. In any case, it's not the "new" stadium until it is built. If we were to rename the article at all, "Proposed Perth Stadium" would be better. However I suggest that we leave the article title as it is, until we have a formal name. (There is apparently no other Perth Stadium to confuse it with, so the current name is sufficient.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Mitch has a point - much better to cover options later with redirects with New Perth stadium, and other possible appelations - if the xxxxx who decided the waterfront renaming have anything to do with it - we will be suprised by some innapropriate name anyway that we cannot second guess.. SatuSuro 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose most of the sources refer to it as Perth Stadium. A bit like Docklands Stadium, I think that even when it does get renamed to some commercial name or Gina's Arena or whatever the ABC and others who avoid commercial names will call it Perth Stadium. The-Pope (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Not too fussed either way, but if moved I would prefer "proposed" to "new". Jenks24 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I concur with the points raised by Mitch Ames and that until an offical/formal name is put forward or the stadium actually built there is no real need for it to be called New. Dan arndt (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Completed or not?

Is it "completed" yet? The lead section currently says "On its completion, it will ..." implying that it is not complete. The article is in both categories "Sports venues completed in 2017" and "... under construction ..." - self-evidently at least one of these categories must be wrong. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

https://optusstadium.com.au/factsheets/construction-fact-sheet/ says "construction ending in 2017", so I've removed the "under construction" categories. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

List of sporting events / List of entertainment

I can see these lists will over time become extremely long and need to be moved to their own separate page. Shouldn't this be preempted, and that page just be created now? Edelmand (talk)

• Support moving the lists out of the main page. Actually, I'm not sure that a complete list of such events is required at all, because WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but it certainly ought not be in the main article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"official test of the Stadium"

Following on from these edits: [1][2][3]...

I think we need to change the "additional notes" text in the List of sporting events..." table from "first/second official test". In particular there doesn't appear to be any reference that say these events were "official tests". The closest the ref cited for "second" [4] gets (at 0:29) is "[the Dockers/Collingwood AFLW match will] be Optus Stadium's next big test after [the BBL game]" - but a comment from a Channel 7 reports is hardly an official statement that the BBL game was a test.

The first match after the official opening is probably notable enough to get an explicit "additional note" - but is there anything other than being the first after the official opening that is notable about this game? Possibly it's the first game that was open to the general public and/or with anything like a full stadium. [5] says that the game on 11 Dec 2017 was a closed trial, but doesn't mention the 13 Dec game. [6] says "on December 13 ... A crowd of up to 10,000 is expected for the game — with most drawn from the 7000 people who have worked on the stadium, and their families."

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I've replaced "first official test" with "first public sporting event" and removed "second official test". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary exclusion of Australian rules football/inclusion of cricket

Presumably the table excludes Aussie rules attendances because there will be 20+ matches a year, but why are we including the sport which will probably play at least 10+ cricket matches (Tests, Big Bash, ODI's, T20's). In time, it will become just as lengthy as a table including Aussie rules. Typical anti-AFL bias. I might change it up. Jono52795 (talk)

Stuff it. I've changed the table. It now shows top 10 attendances, split into sport/entertainment. Can be further split by sports ala Adelaide Oval article in a few years after more events have been played. That way we don't arbitrarily excluded Australian rules football from the figures. The sport that is the only reason why this stadium was built in the first place. 🙄 Jono52795 (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Per #List of sporting events / List of entertainment above, I don't think lists of all events is appropriate here, but the attendance records might be appropriate. That being said:

• "Top 10" is meaningless - the record for each specific type of event would be better. How we define "type of event" might be problematic. (For example, it's all just "cricket" to me, but other people assure me that ODI vs Test vs Twenty20 etc is important, so perhaps we need to list them all.)
• If "top 10" is meaningless, so is the "Number" column, per WP:LISTDD: "Don't use a numbered list unless the numbering is significant."
• It's pointless to list events that have not happened yet, because they haven't set an a record yet (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). If we delete the future Entertainment events, there's only one item left - and the "attendance record" is pointless when there has been only one such event.
• We need to clearly state whether these records are for this venue (biggest audience watching cricket at Perth Stadium) or the country/world (biggest audience watching AFLW or standalone women's domestic game anywhere in Australia).
• The text in Perth Stadium § Sports needs re-writing, to be moved, or deleted (eg 2nd paragraph) to be consistent with a section about attendance records, rather than Events (as it was originally written).
• The table in Perth Stadium § Entertainment needs restructuring, perhaps with "attendance" as the first column, if it's a list of the attendance records.

Mitch Ames (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Agreed on most of those points.

• Personally, I prefer a top 10 list, as opposed to record attendances for each specific event but other stadium articles demonstrate there is no hard and fast rule on this.
• Couple of reasons why. There may be some "events" which get small crowds and you've identified a potential problem in "type of events"; if cricket fans think they can split off T20's, ODI's and Test matches just to boost their presence on the article then can't AFL tragics do the same by splitting up AFL home and away, finals series, women's etc?
• Whichever method we use, to answer one of your points, we can add a note to the attendances which break records outside of just the stadium itself (for example the women's stand-alone record crowd at the AFLW match).

Think we can agree though this is an improvement on the previous table, which was just a blatant attempt to hide the likely mid attendances Australian rules football will have at the ground. Jono52795 (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Have made some of those changes and appreciate your assistance Mitch. Jono52795 (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I still think that future events do not belong in an "attendance records" section. There is no record until the event happens. "TBA" does not allow us to ignore WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL.

Also it is (will be?) meaningless to compare the opening day attendance with single concerts. The former was spread over the whole day, in multiple sessions. The only meaningful comparison might be to multiple concerts in a single tour, eg Ed Sheeran's on 2-3 March. But then it becomes meaningless to compare those to single concerts.

I think we need to re-think this. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the table of events might get too large for the article, and although there are somewhat extensive lists of events at the former Perth Entertainment centre, see Perth_Entertainment_Centre#Concerts - or the extent to which lists creep into Perth_Oval... the problem with the sheer volume of publicity about the venue might simply attract editors wanting to add their understanding of listing every event regardles of what is decided here on the talk page... JarrahTree 08:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines are exactly that. We don't need to be pedantic to the point of preventing valuable information. In my view, a casual reader of any major stadium article should be able to see future events that have been booked by the stadium. By all means remove the opening day general public attendance. I didn't add it, just sought to improve it. In response to JarrahTree's concern about a ever-growing list of events, I would propose two solutions. One is to simply limit the table to a "top 10" (I know, not liked by some) or have an automatically hidden table of all events that can be progressively added to over time (refer to the List of entertainment events at Rod Laver Arena as an example). Jono52795 (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

a casual reader of any major stadium article should be able to see future events — WP:NOTDIRECTORY says otherwise: "an article ... should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules". There's a reasonable case for listing the first concert, it being notable because it is the first, but otherwise no. Also - as I mentioned previously - the table is currently in the "Attendance records" section, and listing "TBA" as an attendance record is nonsense. I think we need to be clear about whether we want a "list of events" or a "list of attendance records", because the criteria for what should be in those two lists is different. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. Its not something I want to die in a ditch over. Jono52795 (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a record

Re these edits: entry added, removed, re-added...

The section heading is Attendance records, but the attendance of 49,021 on 31 March (Fremantle vs Essendon) is not a record. The record for AFL is 53,553 on 25 March (West Coast vs Sydney). Hence the 31 March entry does not belong in that table.

@Benjamin "Jeffrey" Powell: why do consider 49,021 to be a record? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I've removed the entry again. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The table is a list, or at least that is what I understood it to be. Really should only list the top 10 overall attendances and over time this can be categorised by individual Sport when enough events have occurred. Would seem to satisfy MOS:LISTBASICS and is exactly the format used for other Australian Stadium articles like Adelaide Oval. I notice you removed only the Aussie rules attendance, but left the additional cricket figure untouched. Jono52795 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The main section heading is "Attendance records" - and the second most well attended AFL match is not a record, which is why I removed it. The entries that I left in the table were the record attendances for each variation of a sport (mens'/women's football, ODI/T20 cricket etc). I stand by my post in #Arbitrary exclusion of Australian rules football/inclusion of cricket that "top 10" is meaningless - regardless of whether there is one list for each sport (or variation thereof) or one overall.

That being said, if the consensus is that we do have a "top 10" table, then it ought not be under (directly or indirectly) a heading "Attendance records" because anything other than the midest attendance for any specific sport/variation is not a record. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Can I take it that if I amend the title of the heading to “Attendances”, as opposed to “Attendance records”, this would satisfy? I’m all for more engagement by other editors, but I disagree with the idea that records should be kept for each variation of sport, which is grossly favourable to sports like cricket which have T20s, ODIs and Tests, all at domestic and international level. On that basis we should include an AFL pre-season figure because that is a different “variation” to an AFL regular season figure. How about an AFL finals match. This is why I favour what I consider a simpler model. One table with the overall leading attendances and then other tables which are sorted by sport; say Aussie rules, cricket and “other sports”. These can develop over time as more of these events take place. And I’d submit that a top 10 isn’t meaningless, it’s actually a very common and practical way of publishing relevant information without going overboard. Jono52795 (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think even a list of record attendances for the different sports/variations (one attendance value per sport/variation) is overkill, and that the only figure that is notable is the midest attendance overall. However, I'm probably in the minority in that opinion. I'll settle for removing the word "record[s]" from the heading(s) (including table headings) - because then the table contents would be consistent with the headings. Given that Headings should not refer redundantly ... to mider-level headings..., we should remove the word "attendance" from subheadings "... (sports)" and "... (concerts)", eg:

Attendances

Sports

Top 10 all time sports attendances

Concerts

Top 10 musical acts/events attendances

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds excellent to me Jono52795 (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and made those changes Mitch Jono52795 (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Mitch Ames (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move on 27 September 2022

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. (non-admin closure) Steelkamp (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Perth Stadium → Optus Stadium – This is the WP:COMMONNAME. It is what most people refer to the oval as and it is in fact what the majority of sources used in this article refer to it as. It will not cause any issues with other disambiguated titles, other than possibly Optus Oval, but I would say "Perth Stadium" is a name that would cause more of an issue than "Optus Stadium" due to its broadness. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose move to sponsored name. O.N.R. ^(talk) 03:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose No, no, no, no no. We are an encyclopaedia, not an advertising platform. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - per long-standing convention. See Talk:Perth_Arena#Naming_rights_change, Talk:Perth_Arena#Requested_move_13_October_2018 for precedents. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as above, see also Stadium Australia whose colloquial name is probably still ANZ Stadium or (less commercially) the Olympic Stadium for a good reason not to (I did not even realise it was called "Accor Stadium" now). Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. WP:COMMONNAME applies, whether the name is sponsored or not. To those citing other Australian stadia as precedent (Docklands Stadium, Perth Arena, etc.), I say move those too. 162 etc. (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

How do you determine common name? The ABC calls it Perth Stadium. And rightly so, because they are required to avoid advertising. So should we. Why do you think we should include advertising? HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As OP stated, most sources cited in the article use "Optus Stadium". A quick Google finds multiple reliable media outlets [7] [8] [9] [10] that also use "Optus Stadium". ABC is indeed an exception. Wikipedia "prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources.)" The policy is clear, and the sources in this case indicate that "Optus Stadium" is most common. 162 etc. (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that media organisations that themselves use and encourage the use of advertising are hardly independent on a matter such as thus. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Naming the article Optus Stadium is not going to be seen as Wikipedia advertising Optus, but rather an overdue change to its much more common name. So what a few sources (namely really the ABC) do not refer it as Optus Stadium? The majority of sources, such as news outlets and newspapers, do, including most of the sources in this article. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that media organisations that themselves use and encourage the use of advertising are hardly independent on a matter such as thus. (Did I not write that earlier? Did you completely ignore it?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That argument works both ways: and I'd argue that a media organization whose explicit policy is to ignore sponsored names (which is the case for the ABC), even when they are the commonest names in use, is less independent/reliable as a basis for Wikipedia name choice than any generic media organisation with no stated policy one way or t'other. Nevertheless, my opinion remains to oppose this move, while acknowledging that it does contravene COMMONNAME, because I believe our historical consensus/practice of using more permanent names for the article title (even ridiculously contrived ones) and sponsored names for all point in time references throughout the encyclopedia is a practical one. Aspirex (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2022 (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.