Talk:Red Bull Arena (Leipzig)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red Bull Arena (Leipzig) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Stadium name
Having read WikiProject Football/Stadiums, should this page be under the title of Zentralstadion, in line with the guidance on sponsor-related names? Paul Brookes (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem that there's any real guidance there, just the beginning of a discussion that never went anywhere. As for the title, if Red Bull Arena is most commonly used, then it is the correct title, sponsorship or no. oknazevad (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Requested move 23 March 2022
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that Red Bull Arena (Leipzig) be renamed and moved to Zentralstadion. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Red Bull Arena (Leipzig) → Zentralstadion – WP:COMMONNAME: Zentralstadion is the historical name of the stadium and its use is far more extended than Red Bull Arena. The latter, in turn, is just a temporal name for sponsorship reasons. The naming rights are set to expire in 2040 (and hence, its use is not even likely to further consolidate itself, as it is well-known that its only temporal). Originally, the article was named Zentralstadion up until an unilateral move, which has led to WP:EW in multiple occasions. Similar moves to sponsor-names have been reverted on the same grounds as the ones put forward here (see Westfalenstadion, Arena AufSchalke, Waldstadion (Frankfurt) SFBB (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME is the policy, despite WP:FOOTY's pleas to the contrary whenever this sort of discussion comes up. The proposal cites no evidence that "Zentralstadion" is more common. Suggesting that the article title should be changed because the stadium may be renamed in 18 years is a particularly ridiculous violation of WP:CRYSTAL. 162 etc. (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per longstanding consensus that sponsored names should not be used where there is a non-sponsored alternative. See, for example, this recent RM. Cheers, Number 57 12:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 19:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per WP:OFFICIALNAME (see Boleyn Ground as a classic example) and long-standing consensus not to use sponsored names. GiantSnowman 19:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRYSTAL. oknazevad (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment:: The argument for the move is precisely WP:COMMONNAME. Note that the name original name of the article was Zentralstadion and, back then, it was moved to the current name in clear violation of this policy (and obviously without providing evidence, because it doesn't exist). The mention to the end of deal in 40 years, was (I quote myself) not even likely to, in the sense that not even WP:CRYSTAL would support the current name. SFBB (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:COMMONNAME, we are looking for "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". Sources like DW, Bundesliga, City of Leipzig, Sporting News, FMT, there's more, I could keep going, all of which use "Red Bull Arena". While certain sources do use "Zentralstadion" to refer to this building, it does not appear to be more common (and I'll note again that no sources have been cited to support the argument.) I'd even be tempted to think that Zentralstadion (1956) is the primary topic for "Zentralstadion". 162 etc. (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Precisely. The claim that "Zentralstadion" is the common name is unsupported. From what I've seen, it is mostly used for the old stadium on the same site, which has a separate article, not the current building. The claim of "we don't use sponsored names" is not in line with the site-wide guideline, and represents WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at best. A local consensus that is the weakest form as well, as the only discussion of the matter was inconclusive at best, as I mentioned in the abi e section. oknazevad (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Generally we prefer not to use sponsored names if there is a good alternative. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with 162 etc.'s assessment that Red Bull Arena is the common name. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment:: The reason for the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS by WP:FOOTY on WP:COMMONNAME regarding sponsored names, is that official websites (such as the provided above) use official names even though is does not represents WP:COMMONNAME (hence, they're useless for that purpuse). Furthermore, it must pointed out that this article was moved without consensus and the move has been upheld by WP:EW. Hence, the burden of proof has been artificially altered by bold editing, which is not as wikipedia works. Hence, that argument, used by those opposing is per se a bogus argument. SFBB (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not accurate. The article has been at the stable title Red Bull Arena (Leipzig) since 2010.[1] There have been some bold moves which were reverted, however, this is the first time that the article has gone to RM as far as I can tell.
- I also find it interesting that you have piped up twice to attempt to bolster your proposal, yet still have not presented any sources to support the proposed name.162 etc. (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)