Talk:Crypto.com Arena

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rayray411.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheMattDJ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Avengers

It seems the Los Angeles Avengers are now defunct. I added the word "formerly" before their inclusion on the list of currently hosted franchises, with the intention of a quick -- albeit temporary -- fix. I'm not sure if this devalidates the statement that it's the "only arena to host five professional sport franchises," as I'm not really sure what we're including under that definition. If the NBA D-League team counts, then the statement still stands, otherwise it needs to be retracted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.213.54 (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

All Caps?

Just because the official title is in all caps, doesn't nessecarily mean that it has to be all caps here on wikipedia. For example, the Miami Heat are offically the Miami "HEAT" on thier websites, but the name is rendered "Heat" when it is referenced in stories. Than same is true with the Staples Center. Maybe we should use the correct media style guide, not the "official" guideline. Dknights411 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that since most media articles I've seen all spell out STAPLES Center as Staples Center.3bulletproof16 23:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling

Wrestling is an important billion dollar industry with a long history and worldwide interest and notability. Add to that the wrestling gave this venue its biggest attendance ever for an event, these references should be here (hint; those wrestling wikilinks go somewhere). Hypnosadist 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro wrestling is about as notable to the history of sporting venues as tractor pulls. Only by the insistence of a small motley crew of rasslin' buffs does it even merit mention in a general-interest encyclopedia, and it certainly doesn't need to creep its way into other articles that have all but nothing to do with the pseudo-sport. I Always Win 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The notability of wrestling comes from the tickets to shows it sells at places like the staples center and the TV revinue generated and the coverage in the media. You obviously do not like wrestling, thats all well and good, but it is a notable part of world culture. Hypnosadist 23:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

See my user page for my last word on the pseudo-sport. If professional wrestling has become a "notable part of world culture", Armageddon can not come soon enough. I Always Win 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet opinions don't mean much on Wikipedia. Oh, the fact that WrestleMania 23 had more than 80,000 people and that WWE RAW (which has been on TV every week for the last 14 years) continues to get millions of viewers every week make it pretty notable. TJ Spyke 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of work

This article reads like a press release for the arena in some sections and certainly has some problems with POV and is entirely unreferenced. Hope someone can work on this and bring it up to Wikipedia standards. - Gmatsuda 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the Articleissues template from the article. There are several problems with this article. When those problems are resolved THEN remove it. -- Gmatsuda 02:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree with the removal of the Articleissues template and the addition of more wrestling events to the list by 3bulletproof16. The fact is, it already lists way too many concerts and other events. If you want a detailed list of events that have taken place at Staples Center, please create a separate article/list for them.

As for the other problems with this article, they are still there. First of all, there are nowhere near enough verifiable sources and inline citations; virtually all the citations are from AEG, not from another independent source. Second, without enough verifiable sources, the article is suspect because it appears that much of it is based on original research. Finally, the article still reads like an advertising/PR piece for the arena and also needs to be reviewed for possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on requiring a neutral point of view. Also, I strongly suspect that editors who are connected to Staples Center and/or AEG have written much of this article, which violates Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest.

Finally, I have been threatened to not edit this article further. Really have to question what's going on with this article. Jeez. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is no threat. Read WP:3RR. Wikipedia prefers avoiding Edit wars as they lead to the disruption of articles and can result in those involved being Blocked. The citations come from a variety of sites, from AEG to the independent Los Angeles Sports Commission, and the architectural firms involved with the project. I am currently in the process of adding more sources including 3rd Party (which are preferred by Wikipedia policy). The article is not and has not been written by anyone involved with the AEG either. Lists are frowned upon by Wikipedia's Manual of Style policy per WP:EMBED. If you still feel the article violates WP:NPOV I would recommend requesting a WP:RfC.-- bulletproof ^3:16 07:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it read like one until you changed "edit" to "revert" on my talk page. :-) Anyway, I'm not interested in an edit war. In fact, I had no idea you were working on the article...it appeared that you just added more wrestling events (I still feel we've already gone overboard on listing examples of events) and arbitrarily removed the Articleissues template. I look forward to your improvements. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

About the references...four of the six are from AEG sources. That's why I said that more independent sources are needed. Not that the AEG sources are suspect, but it would give the article more credibility if more independent sources are used. And what evidence do you have that no one involved with AEG has contributed to this article? I'm not trying to cause trouble...it's just that in its present form, the article reads like a publicity piece for the arena. That brings up suspicions about who has had a hand in writing it. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My doubt that AEG has contributed to the article in any form is in part confirmed by the fact that the IPs I've checked have been traced to locations outside of California (AEG is a Los Angeles based company) and in part by the fact that Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (Hope you understand that one). It would certainly help if you specifically pointed out which parts of the article you feel are inappropriate for encyclopedic content.-- bulletproof ^3:16 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I probably won't be able to get back to this for a few days...FYI... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only sort of "back." But a couple of things...keep in mind that AEG is a worldwide company with people working for them all over the place. And based on the way they do business, it would not surprise me if they had employees outside of LA area contributing to this article to reduce the chance of being "caught." Call me a conspiracy theorist, sure. But I've had a lot of experience in watching AEG as a freelance writer covering the LA Kings, so, as I said, it wouldn't surprise me. They do whatever they want if it's in their best interests and if no one is watching.

As for specifics on what reads like a press release or like a publicity piece for Staples Center, it hits you in the face right away. The first thing the History section says is that it won the Pollstar award. First thing. I'm not questioning whether or not they won this award. Rather, I'm saying that this is probably not appropriate at this point in the article, especially when the lead needs to be re-written and expanded. In fact, the lead should probably include much of what is in the History section. That being the case, mention of the award certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Mention of this award should appear later in the article.

The events listed in the History section should probably be pruned a bit. The Pac 10 hoops tournament is mentioned twice. We can delete one of the wrestling events as well, without taking away from the article.

In the Future developments section: It starts with, "Although Staples Center is already a Los Angeles landmark..." While that is probably true, who determined that? There is no factual basis provided. There should be a couple of citations for this statement, or it's nothing more than POV and adds to the "publicity piece" feel, IMHO. Also, this section goes into more detail about LA Live than needs to be there, another thing that makes it read like a promo for AEG. All it needs to mention is the hotel/residential building, the Nokia Theater and ESPN broadcast facility/studios, and "...other retail, entertainment and dining amenities," or something to that effect. It doesn't have to get more specific than that. LA Live can have its own article, after all.

The notes section also reads like a promotion for the arena. What purpose does the load-in information serve in the article? I'm sure it's factual, but is it encyclopedic? Hardly. Same goes for the color of the seats and mention of the scoreboard. Mention of the television capabilties is notable, but I think the number of camera positions is probably too specific to be encyclopedic. Further, the notes section should be eliminated and the items listed, if important, should be worked into the prose.

Those are my thoughts for now...I may come up with more later. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

About the history section...there is one mention of most kinds of events held at Staples Center, with the exception of the wrestling events, of which there are six. That's a POV/balance problem to me. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There would be an exception to those events because they are indeed notable by the fact that they are responsible for setting many of the arena’s current record figures. You also have to understand that these types of events aren't similar to those such as concerts, or road shows that occur every week or so. They are events much like the NCAA finals, or the Latin Grammy Awards that occur yearly and are differentiated by that fact. The issue here is that an editor currently being questioned by admins has been going around articles and removing all notes relating to professional wrestling from them. That was what my edit summary was referring to. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment actually wasn't really a reaction to that editor. What he did just prompted me to think about that. :-) But when the article gets a big face-lift, I think the history needs to be cleaned up and perhaps it can be re-written so that the wrestling events do not dominate. After all, the primary focus really should be on their primary tenants. Lesser weight should be given to the other events, regardless of their notablity, IMHO. Even the 2001 NHL All-Star Game and the Democratic Convention years ago are more notable (the 2001 NHL All-Star Game because its related to one of the primary tenants). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One other thing about attendance figures...keep in mind that the configurations for different events prevent hockey and basketball from setting an attendance record as high as a concert, boxing, wrestling, etc. that doesn't require as much floor space...they can put in a lot more seats for such events, so IMHO, that reduces (not eliminates) the notability of the wresting events in terms of setting attendance records. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but after reading it I'm inclined to agree with Gmatsuda's concerns noted above. Sounds too much like a promo piece; too many AEG references; and the pro wrestling references should be pared down a bit. In terms of the latter, may I suggest the following: Staples Center has also hosted many World Wrestling Entertainment events, including the attendance record-setting Wrestlemania 21 in 2005.[4] Simple and to the point. --Alika (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been away, but now that I'm back and looking at this article again, it's still little more than a promotional piece for Staples Center and the list of events/performers reflects nothing more than a popularity poll. "Who do I like best that performed at Staples Center? I'm going to add them to the list!"

There are WAY too many performers/events listed, especially in terms of pro wrestling. This article needs to be cleaned up in this area especially. There is no need to list so many event or performers to make it clear that Staples Center hosts many big events and big-name performers. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, pro wrestling, concerts and other performances/events held at Staples Center dominate this article. So little attention is paid to their primary tenants that it seems like they are not notable at all, despite the fact that they are, the most notable of all those who use Staples Center as a venue. This is the worst part of this article in its present form.

As a result of all of the above, I've added the Multiple Issues template to the article, listing several concerns. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are the one how seems a bit biased. See there are only 6 references pertaining to pro wrestling, and 13 pertaining to sports related to those of the arena's tenants, additionally 3 references to other combat based sports, and 4 on award shows/conventions. I just thought I'd start-off with mentioning that since I noticed you mentioned pro wrestling as a subject you believe to be heavily mentioned next to concert performances (which is clearly the only subject that seems to be heavily mentioned). Now about the concerts performances, I should inform you that these have all been constantly added to various venue articles by User:Shyguy1991 (see contribs) Multiple users have brought our concerns to this user about his excessive edits to arena/stadium/venue articles regarding the addition of lists of concert performances, although we haven't been quite strict about it. Perhaps it is an issue you should take up with him as it is one that currently affects various articles. Now regarding your addition of concern templates to the article, I am going to remove two concern templates I feel have yet to be validly warranted based on your recent reply. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 11:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the one who's biased here. After all, there are "only 6 references to pro wresting," according to your comment above. Why do we need six, when significant events by the primary tenants aren't mentioned that many times? That, and, as you admit, there are way, way too many concerts listed, is evidence of how unbalanced this article is, regardless of who is responsible for that. As such, I'm going to re-add the unbalanced tag. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Shyguy1991, after looking at his talk page, he is clearly ignoring and hiding (by deleting warnings and blanking his talk page) requests and warnings and has no intention of changing his behavior. Perhaps it's time to be strict? Is he violating Wikipedia policy with these edits? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No, and unfortunately neither are the mentions of professional wrestling. Take up WP:Listcruft with Shyguy....^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If he's not violating any policies, what is there to take up? I did add the fancruft tag... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Attendance Record

I'm wondering if the Staples Center attendance record is 20,262 instead of 20,193 because on Februry 23, 2008 when the Lakers played the Clippers the attendance was 20,262, and the article says it's 20,193 from Wrestlemania 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.61.163 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for the new record, then yes, please correct it and be sure to provide an inline citation. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrections, the actual attendance record is 20,820 set by the Shane Mosley vs Antonio Margarito Welterweight fight in January 2009. It broke the previous attendance record of 20,193 set by WWE WrestleMania 21 on April 3rd, 2005.--Nascarking (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I thought I'd just mention here that I have removed parts of the text in the section "The arena" as it was written like an advertisement. I do also have concerns that part of the "Future developments" section may violate WP:NPOV but I have left the section untouched so that if necessary, it can be discussed. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this a step further. The article is still missing citations for various "facts," it contains statements that, without citations, appear to be based on original research, and since much of it sounds like a press release for the arena, I suspect that it may have been edited by someone with a conflict of interest. These are all tags that I've added to this article before, I know, but nothing has been done to this article, IMHO, to warrant their removal. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops...actually, the citation problem is that all of them are from AEG, the owner of the arena. There are no citations from independent sources, even though it is a virtually certainty that they are available. I'll remove the citations missing tag, but this is a concern. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading

Can I just say that the comment "It is the only arena that is home to five professional sports franchises" is actually false and misleading. For example, in Australia, the MCG is home to 5 'franchises' in the AFL alone, let alone cricket, soccer and rugby. You may want to re-word that sentence so it doesn't completely mislead people. Cheers --122.49.155.20 (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The JBA Los Angeles Ballers did not have a home arena, as with all JBA teams. his reference should be removed from the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.2.182 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Facts and Timeline sections = Trivia section

The Facts and Timeline sections that were in this article were nothing more than a trivia section. This material needs to be incorporated into the prose. It also contains some rather useless trivia. I don't have time to make these edits, so I just combined them into a trivia section and added the trivia flag to the Articleissues template. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WHY

Why are the JBA, LA Ballers even listed in this article? And why are they listed as still active?

I AM TRYING TO FIND A LAYOUT OR A BLUEPRINT OF THE INSIDE OF A SPORTS ARENA AND I CANT FIND ONE ANYWHERE. WHY IS IT SO HARD TO FIND OUT WHAT THE INSIDES OF AN ARENA LOOKS LIKE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.203.97 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed a bunch of performers/artists

I've removed a bunch of the performers/artists who have appeared in concert at Staples Center and have added the fact template for each of those listed, since they are all unreferenced. Hopefully, none will be added unless they are of tremendous notability as there is no need for this article to list every single artist who has performed in concert at Staples Center. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This article comtinues to attract editors who insist on adding every performer/performance at Staples Center, when it should only highlight them. Good example is a recent edit by Lolcakes25, an apparant Beyonce fan, adding a performance by Beyonce that just happened.

This article is NOT a list of every single perforner or event at Staples Center, nor should it be. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

League of Legends world championship missing

Can someone more skilled at editing than me please add in the history that in 2011, 2012 and 2013 the center hosted the League of Legends world championships final. I realize pro gaming may not be the most famous sport ATM but it is still a major event that attracts large crowds both live and watching online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.196.18 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Typo

@Gmatsuda: why? If the pipe chacarter was intentional, then you should probably add comment or put the [[Arena football]]: 16,096<br>[[Concerts]]: 20,000<br>[[Boxing]]: 21,000<br />Concert theatre: 6,100<br />Lower bowl: 9,500 part in comment, which is used for comments, pipe characters in such places could confuse editors. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Staples Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712123832/http://www.johnmartin.com/projects/sports--recreation.html to http://www.johnmartin.com/projects/sports--recreation.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100318114630/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2004/2004_09_27.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2004/2004_09_27.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100219220823/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2005/2005_03_23.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2005/2005_03_23.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828062613/http://aegworldwide.com/01_venues/staples_center.php to http://www.aegworldwide.com/01_venues/staples_center.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060707101145/http://www.aegworldwide.com/home.html to http://www.aegworldwide.com/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"The House that Kobe Built"

Hello all, I saw that some editors have added "The House that Kobe Built" as the nickname for the Staples Center. I'm seeing some news outlets, including CBS Los Angeles, CNN, and HuffPost, among others. I'm only seeing quotes and not much secondary coverage. These sources are only quoting other people. I want to see if there is any consensus or no consensus to include the nickname in the infobox and main article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It would need WP:RS to be included which clearly demonstrates it has long been widely used and genuine nickname/alternative name, not just a currently repeated phrase at a moment of nationale outpouring of grief. I know nothing about this topic, but I did revert the inclusion of that name, citing a CBS source as my rationale (diff). Interestingly, in a chance discussion about it at WP:AN, the same source was suggested as a rationale for keeping it, which I dismissed. I would want to see far better sources then mere mentions if the phrase were to be added as a 'nickname'. Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes. I am seeing more sources mentioning the phrase but they are still quoting other people. I'm going to keep an eye out for other sources that are mentioning the phrase. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, me too - and some may have picked up on seeing Wikipedia bearing that phrase, until they were reverted. I am a totally uninvolved editor, with no axe to grind either way, and not from the US. I just feel there is a difference between stating a nickname as a genuine historic epithet, based upon good sources,, and current feelings of grief towards a highly-respected player. I have, however, added a paragraph in the 'History' section which refers to this phrase, which I believe is totally valid to put in. I would really like to see some pre-January 2020 reliable sources demonstrating that it was already a valid and commonly-used nickname. Additions of a 'nickname' to the infobox using sources following his death seem less reliable and more emotionally respectful, that's all. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)  

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

The JBA Los Angeles (LA) Ballers tenant reference should be removed. JBA teams did not have home arenas. 184.66.2.182 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2021

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, effective Christmas Day. Sceptre (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Staples Center → Crypto.com Arena – Crypto.com Arena will change from Staples Center on Dec. 25. 2600:100E:BE1A:2875:CAA:5CBE:67C9:A981 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wait. This article should remain at its current title until the name change occurs. See WP:CRYSTAL. 162 etc. (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support on December 25 – Per comment above, the new name will take effect on Christmas Day, please wait until then. JE98 (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. The article should not change until the arena officially changes on December 25. Mannysoloway (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy close as of now it’s still called the Staples Center.--65.93.193.134 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose until December 25, then I'll start to support after the new name takes effect. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Do It NOW Just end the debate and name it Crypto.com Arena Youppi! (talk) 20:30 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until December 25, I do agree on moving the article, but its toooooo early to switch and move the page. FOR NOW, it's best to hold it until December 25 (Christmas Day) to make the changes go into effect, which is the day the arena gets the new name. 20chances (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Do it on December 24. There are NO NBA Games that day so it should be done 12/24/21 Youppi! (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wait. Don't change the name of the article until the name change actually occurs for the arena on December 25. Spinz131 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2021 (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.

Name change

I moved the page and changed everything in this article. So all is good for the official changeover which is now 12 hours away according to my watch. I also made changes on other pages to reflect the name change. Hope this helps. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@IndustryPlantCooper: While this is pretty uncommon, wait until it actually takes effect next time please. You changed it at 7:30 AM California time which 16 and a half hours before it officially took effect. We have to wait until things officially take effect and it's usually the exact time in the time zone. I know it seems a little nit picky, but it's not technically Crypto.com Arena until midnight California time on December 25.--Rockchalk717 05:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I understands. Thats fine. I had already taken care of the name change on the Harry Reid International Airport page and I did it within 24 hours prior to the name change of that airport. Now that the name change is effective for Crypto.com Arena, I am noticing some redundancy being added (sometimes to this page) and to other pages that mention the venue, so that seems to be important right now to ensure articles don't get overly redundant with mentions of the prior name. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• User:IndustryPlantCooper, thanks for the enthusiasm, but do keep WP:CRYSTAL in mind when editing. Even if this name change was essentially a "done deal" at the time of your edit, Wikipedia articles should not attempt to look into the future. 162 etc. (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I hear you. It’s all good. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

New photo?

Do any of you live near the arena? If so it would be great if someone could get a new photo of the venue with the new signage up. All the photos on the page now say Staples Center, but if we can at least get a new one to put at the top that would be wonderful. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

So I hear that it won't be until the summer certain renovations will be done and I believe that includes the installation of the new signage. This means we may have to wait several more months before getting newer photos of the arena we can put up. We just got to wait. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

New photo has been added! It is worth noting that the arena name has not been put onto the exterior of the arena yet. I'm not sure when that is happening but the current photo will do just fine for now. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like they're gonna wait until summer like you mentioned? Either way glad I could help! Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 20:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Mentions of former name

I keep seeing users re-adding the former name "Staples Center" under the top photo in the infobox. I find this overly redundant. Firstly, in the photo, it says Staples Center. You can see it just by viewing the photo, so you can tell that's the former name. At the top of the article, the former name appears in boldface. Lastly, in the infobox, there is a header for the former name and the former name Staples Center is mentioned. There really is no real need to constantly be mentioning the former name more than its mentioned. Mentioning it at the top of the article is fine as the name change is recent. Mentioning it in the infobox under the former name header is perfectly logical as it reflects the venue's history. Beyond that mentioning it in the photo caption just makes the article overly redundant. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Crypto.com Arena in 2012" is an anachronism. Crypto.com Arena didn't exist in 2012. I've updated the infobox accordingly. 162 etc. (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I hear you. So why don’t we just compromise by saying “Exterior of the Arena as seen in 2012”. Obviously that photo was taken before the name change and that’s why I suggested that someone get an updated photo of the exterior of the arena with the new signage. Yes, the photo does contradict that logo that is up there, so this is why I feel that this is a reasonable compromise as relevant points have been made by both sides.--IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That's perfect. I've also made similar edits to the "Image gallery" section. 162 etc. (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This totally works! Thanks! I hear that they don’t have all the new signage up yet. I don’t know when that will be complete but when it is, hopefully we will have photos available to us with the new signage that can be included in the article. We just got to be patient, but we’ll get there. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

New section on the history of the naming rights?

This is just an idea, but I’m curious as to how you all feel. Do any of you feel that it might be worthwhile to add a new section to the article about the history of the naming rights? Two different companies have had naming rights to the venue already and perhaps it’s not a bad idea to add a new section. In addition to the venue having two different names over the past two decades, during the Olympics and Paralympics the venue will temporarily have a completely different name because apparently the sports venues can’t have a corporate name during the Olympics. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"The Crypt"

Some users appear to be giving the venue a nickname; "The Crypt". The name just changed and its too soon for the venue to have a nickname for the name change. If it were to stick around as a nickname amongst the public and it the reference were to be sourced then maybe. But if "The House the Kobe Built" can't be included, I don't see why "The Crypt" would be included. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)