Talk:Oakland Coliseum

Name Change

Note: The name has changed to Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum -- I updated most references but there needs to be more done and I don't have access.

Wasn't it originally called the "Alameda County Stadium", at least colloquially? "Alameda County Stadium" is what I remember the broadcasters saying during the three sets of World Series in the 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind273 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It's been the Oakland Alameda County Coliseum since it opening in 1966 with the exception of Network Associates/McAfee years. The broadcasters may have called it "Alameda County Stadium" erroneously however. I've heard broadcasters and video games call it "Oakland Alameda County Stadium" over the years. Doesn't mean either was correct. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.230.44 (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex was the outdoor stadium and the indoor arena. The outdoor stadium was commonly called "the Coliseum", while the arena was called "The Coliseum arena".

While the company did change its name to McAfee, the stadium still hasn't undergone the name change yet. The official website still references Network Associates Coliseum. (submitted by a McAfee employee)

I added the old nickname, the net, to the article. 24.7.109.167 19:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Stadium Question

If the A's move to a new ballpark, will the Raiders change the semi-circle seating section?--BigMac1212 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how they can. They'd have to basically tear the older part of the stadium down which isn't very cost effective. Gateman1997 02:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The semi-circle stands basically consist of two-thirds of the stadium. So unless the city wants to fork over additional money again to rebuild the stadium I don't see it happening. Gemini2525 11:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mount Davis Merger

I agree that the Mount Davis article should be merged into the McAfee Coliseum article as the Mount Davis article merely describes a part of McAfee Coliseum.

Already done Irish Matador 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:McAfee Coliseum logo.png

Image:McAfee Coliseum logo.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Net

I have no recollection of Network Associates Coliseum being referred to as "The Net" other than in a video game, where the default sportscasters claim that people call it as such. No one ever called it that. It has and always will be simply the Coliseum. Fans may have sometimes mocked it that way, but it never became an official nickname, much like the current mocking "The Mac" for McAfee. Also, Oracle Arena is still referred to as The Arena. This is from its days as The Oakland Arena/The Arena In Oakland. 24.4.131.142 20:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The A's used "the Net" in some advertising, specifically they had a "see you at the Net" ad campaign a few years ago. However no one outside the team ever uses anything but "the Coliseum" in my experience. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Coliseum BART and Amtrak stations

Any mention of the BART and Amtrak stations from this article? A pedestrian bridge directly links from the elevated track level at the BART station to the Coliseum, passing over the nearby Amtrak tracks. --Geopgeop (T) 06:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No Re-Entry

When did the coliseum begin its frustrating no re-entry policy? 76.126.15.78 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been in force since my first game there in 1987. Not unlike most stadiums. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

McAfee Coliseum → Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum — Sept 19 2008 the stadium reverted back to it's original name at the end of the 10 year naming rights agreement with McAfee. Plus old name was the common name. — Gateman1997 (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Of course I support this move much like Monster Park was moved back to Candlestick Park at the conclusion of that naming rights deal. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

No Football Pictures?

The pictures in this article are decent baseball shots of the A's playing at the Coliseum but I think a picture or two of the Raiders playing football at the Coliseum should also be added. Even though there are more baseball home games than football home games, a couple of football pics could be added as some would argue that the Coliseum looks more like a football stadium since the 1996 Renovation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf78 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since the football configuration looks markedly different. It also wouldn't hurt to include a description in the article of how they change the configuration for the two sports. 99.141.50.22 (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on this talk page specifically to ask why there is no explanation as to how they convert the stadium for each sport. I couldn't find much on Google either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.65.74 (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. It's a fairly simple operation, they pull out some seats in the main bowl and move them into the parking lot while moving in some seats from the lot to extend out the baseball bleachers.

I've added some more football pictures to the article. Commandr Cody (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Table

I changed the former three-column list into a table in the seating capacity section. Here's the wikicoding, if anyone cares:

{{col-begin}}{{col-break}}
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Baseball
|-
! scope="row" | Years
! scope="row" | Capacity
|-
! scope="row" | 1968-1976
| 50,000
|-
! scope="row" | 1977-1980
| 49,649
|-
! scope="row" | 1981-1982
| 50,255
|-
! scope="row" | 1983-1984
| 50,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1985
| 50,255
|-
! scope="row" | 1986
| 50,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1987
| 49,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1988
| 50,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1989
| 49,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1990
| 48,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1991
| 47,450
|-
! scope="row" | 1992-1995
| 47,313
|-
! scope="row" | 1996-1997
| 39,875
|-
! scope="row" | 1998-2005
| 43,662
|-
! scope="row" | 2006-2007
| 34,077
|-
! scope="row" | 2008-present
| 35,067
|}
{{col-break}}
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Football
|-
! scope="row" | Years
! scope="row" | Capacity
|-
! scope="row" | 1966-1976
| 54,587
|-
! scope="row" | 1977-1988
| 54,615
|-
! scope="row" | 1989-1995
| 54,444
|-
! scope="row" | 1996-present
| 63,026
|}
{{col-end}}

I just wanted to notify this talk page about my edit. 71.146.10.213 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Name used by the As for the stadium

The article says "the A's continue to refer to the stadium as the Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum in all official team communications and on team websites." and it provides a source. I'm sure this was previously true, but as it stands, the A's seem to refer to the stadium as O.co Coliseum on the official website linked under External links.

Point being - I've removed that line from the article. If the A's do refer to it by its old name in some other media, obviously the article should be changed to say so.

64.203.32.214 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, and no consensus as to what constitutes the common name in this case, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

---

O.co Coliseum → Oakland Coliseum – Per WP:COMMONNAME and the preponderance of the Five Virtues for a title listed at WP:AT. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 18:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, let's recap what the old brickyard has been formally named offically:

• Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum (1966–1998)
• Network Associates Coliseum (1998–2004)
• McAfee Coliseum (2004–2008)
• Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum (2008–2011)
• Overstock.com Coliseum (2011)
• O.co Coliseum (2011-2014)

Going forward, who knows? There's no reason to assume that there won't be more "names" to come before the old girl breathes her last.

The Five Virtues

The Five Virtues are of article titles given at WP:AT are:

1. Recognizability (The title is a name or description of the subject that someone failiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize)
2. Naturalness (The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English)
3. Precision (The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects)
4. Conciseness (The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects), and
5. Consistency (The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles)

Certainly "Oakland Coliseum" is far more recognizable and more natural. As to precision "Oakland Coliseum" it is far more precise, considering that the article is about the entity over the course of its existence generally (1966-present) rather than specifically to its nature, history, or configuration in the period 2011-present. Not sure about consistency with other titles.

As to concision, it is true that "O.co" is fewer letters than "Oakland", but probably not fewer words (it might be or it might be more, depending on if you count "O.co" as one word, more than one word, or not a word at all). It is probably more syllables ("Oh dot coh col ah see um" vs. "Oke land col ah see um") depending on if one pronounces the dot. If concision is valorized in order to make the title easier to read, "O.co" with a punctuation mark in the middle of a word (or a dot instead of a space between two words, or whatever they are doing there) certainly fails badly there. So trying be fair (and IMO extremely generous to "O.co"), let's call that one a draw.

So that's 3-0-1 of the Five Virtues in favor of the move (I'm not counting Consistency since I don't know the facts, but even if "O.co" is more consistent that's still 3-1-1 favoring the move.) The Five Virtues are really important, WP:AT is a policy and an venerable and important one.

But what about sources?

But wait. WP:AT also says "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". Generally. Let's talk about this.

I'm going to assume that preponderance of sources, at least since 2011, use "O.co" to denote the stadium; I'm not going to check this because it must be true or the article would never have been given this name and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So OK, moving forward. Three things about that.

First, I looked into this in detail a while back for another matter, and what I found was that WP:AT says that because a title which is used by the great preponderance of reliable sources will also almost always best embody most of the Five Virtues. Of course it will. It would be quite unusual for a name to be used by a great preponderance of reliable sources in English but have the great preponderance of readers not recognize it and expect something different. Almost always. But not always, it appears, and that sentence did not consider what happens when corporate marketeers getting their mitts on the rights to jerk around with the name of large and long-lived civic gathering places and so forth.

Second, to the extent that the preponderance of reliable sources uses "O.co", some of those are captive sources. The broadcasters must refer in their broadcasts to "O.co Coliseum" by contract (I assume, and contract or no they're surely be fired if they refuse to). The newspapers can't be legally required to, but they have a strong incentive to not put themselves in a position where they are are odds with the the stadium operators (Anschutz Entertainment Group) and owners (the City of Oakland and Almeda County); if O.co complains to the city and the city talks to AEG and your reporter is not welcome in the locker room that's a problem and there's no reason for a publisher to make that problem for itself. From there a likely trickle-down mindless-copycatting effect may be in play. None of this has anything to do with what the preponderance of actual people actually call this entity.

Third, no sources refer to this entity as "O.co" before 2011. For the great majority of its life another name was used (and likely will be in future, when O.co gets tired of this nonsense). It's silly to say "Well, here are three good refs from 2011-2014 that use "O.co" as the name, and 27 good refs from 1966-2011 that use another name (mostly Oakland Coliseum or some variant), so let's ignore the 27 and go with the three".

Miscellaneous issues

It has been called Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum more times than any other name (twice). It has been called called Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum for a longer time than any other name. It is probably well past the halfway point of its existence, and when it is finally torn down and referred to only in the past tense, it will almost certainly be referred to as either "Oakland Coliseum" or "Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum" generally, except in the probably relatively rare instances when a specific reference to McAfee Coliseum and so forth is called for.

Yeah sure we can change the name after it's torn down, but in the meantime, considering our mirrors and many incoming links and references from outside, we are leaving a trail of redirect and double-redirect garbage for future readers to sort through. This is not a service to the reader or to history. It is not encyclopedic, in other words.

And... what happens when PepsiCo is running a promotion and renames Pepsi Stadium to New Raspberry Diet Pepsi Stadium just for the month of August 2018? What happens when a movie studio gets naming rights and changes the name to its latest release every month? What happens when a stadium is named Pop!WOW Software Park for baseball games and Kompressor Infrastructure Stadium for football games? What happens when it is given a non-descriptive name such as "Pop!WOW FunCloud". What happens if a stadium is named "Governor Joe Smith Eats Kittens Alive Stadium"? OK, little far out, but if we feel we have to dance like puppets to what somebody has paid to be the "official" name regardless of what people actually call it or how the reader is best served, same principle would apply.

If all this is still not convincing, another way to approach this would be to say that the entity has no name, really. A "name" is a label, a pronounceable word or group of sounds, which:

• Is attached an entity through its existence (and beyond).
• Provides a stable label for people to refer to the entity in both past, present, and future contexts.
• Might be changed occasionally, but usually rarely, seldom, and not lightly.

And it may be that this hunk of concrete and steel in Oakland no longer has one of those anymore, thanks to ridiculous shenanigans that the structure's owners have engaged in. However, if we accept that, I'm not sure what we should name the article -- "Large Sports Stadium in Oakland, California" or something, I suppose, and we can talk about that. Not great, but certainly better than the essentially worthless string "O.co Coliseum". Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2: break 1

• Support - WP:COMMONNAME In ictu oculi (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the OP's analysis, I'm concerned that the "Consistency" factor ("the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles") will start becoming problematic if this article is moved. Currently most articles on other sports venues in the US, like NFL stadiums, MLB ballparks, NBA arenas, NHL arenas and Major League Soccer stadiums use the current corporate name (if the stadium has some sort of naming right deal) for consistency. For example, you have what is now Sun Life Stadium, which has gone through multiple naming right deals; the consensus has been to keep it at that title. More recently, we have had Talk:U.S. Cellular Field#Requested move, where consensus was to keep the corporate name in the title. The common reason cited is that most reliable sources like ESPN and other major national sports media sources in the US use the corporate name. In fact, for the past several years, whenever such a venue has undergone a name change, consensus has been to change the article name once reliable sources start using the name -- usually the day that the name change officially takes effect. In these cases, "consistency" has eventually overridden the other WP:AT virtues. As WP:NC states, "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent". And that is what I'm citing here. And WP:AT also states that "it may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others" (emphasis added) -- it does not say that one should merely base it off of scoring it like the OP's 3-1-1 score. I may change my support, however, if there is a massive page move request on the other stadia because other venues like Sun Life Stadium have similar scenarios. But as of now, all these articles on these major US sports venues should have a consistent naming practice, not a mixture. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, all that you say is reasonable. It's not good when some of the Five Virtues are in conflict with each other. It may be that we ought to have a larger discussion at WP:AT over names for sports venues in general. (It may also be that we should just have a sea change and begin it here.) My personal point of view is that Consistency is not that great a benefit to the reader so I, personally, don't care that much about it, although from an editing standpoint it helps reduce arguments. As to the rest, I'll just reiterate that IMO some of the reliable sources are, or are at least partially are, captive sources. The relationship between ESPN (et al) and the league owners is complicated and symbiotic and to some degree ESPN is a "house organ" for the NFL etc. It's nothing like the New York Times deciding whether to use Myanmar or Burma. Herostratus (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, "However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change." My experience is that articles for subjects, whether they be people or other entities, typically follow a name change soon after current sources consistently adopt the name. Is there any reason to believe any new edition of a previously published reference wouldn't make a note to the new name to the effect of "now know as ...", or "formerly known as ..."—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Although I personally would prefer to use Oakland Coliseum, I feel that it is customary to use naming rights names for buildings and stadiums on WP long before they become the more recognizable name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support: It is the main or only coliseum in Oakland, so it is the Oakland Coliseum, and never mind firms' advertizing departments trying to force people to push some firm's wares whenever there is need to mention the place. Same as, here in England, to most people the Grand National horserace is the "Grand National" plain and without prefixing some sponsor's advertizory tradename. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I am convinced that this is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME, chiefly due to the longevity of the "Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum" name, which is also the first name, so I would also support a move to that name. starship.paint ~ regal 12:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggested "Oakland Coliseum" over "Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum" because it's more concise, and Concision is one of the Five Virtues, and the other Five Virtues are probably more a less a tossup between "Oakland Coliseum" over "Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum" ("Oakland Coliseum" may have a slight edge in Naturalness but that'd be hard to prove). Herostratus (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support; page titles should not be so transitory that short term corporate renaming can cause them to shift like leaves in the wind. bd2412 T 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It is noble to try to reduce the influence of corporate naming in society. The reality is that in the US, most new stadiums—like those at List of Major League Baseball stadiums—have had a corporate sponsor in their real-life name since Day 1. For example, AT&T Park has previously had names Pacific Bell Park and SBC Park; it's never been named after its location in San Francisco. Consensus might end up for "Oakland Coliseum" in this specific case, but the rationale should not be to merely avoid corporate sponsors in names, as it will be problematic for newer stadiums that have only had corporate sponsorship and no mention of locale in their official names.—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Compare the current Sun Life Stadium, now on its seventh name and fifth Wikipedia title. There is no reason to believe that this title will remain stable in the future. Worse yet, sometimes corporate sponsors give up naming rights to one stadium and acquire those rights in another (whether at the professional or collegiate level). Suddenly, all the incoming links to that title are wrong, because it now refers to a different stadium. This is a pain we can easily avoid by naming stadiums in accordance with their stable characteristics. bd2412 T 17:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • What stable characteristic should be used for naming the articles for AT&T Field and Bank of America Stadium, then? Their street address, like we do with some office towers? --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Possibly - street address or some other geographic feature like the city it is located in, if it is the city's only stadium. I note that the "Bank of America Stadium" is called "Carolinas Stadium" when FIFA uses it, which suggests to me that it is only "Bank of America" with respect to certain uses, and would otherwise default to "Carolinas". bd2412 T 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
        • In that situation you seem to be specifically aiming away from the corporate name, despite that being what roughly 99% of sources use. That it uses a different name for FIFA games does not mean that name is at all common. You have it backwards - it's BofA as default, and "Carolinas" for specific uses. Your statement makes me think you're against using any corporate name, rather than searching for the 'common' or 'stable' name. The stable name of BofA stadium is BofA stadium. The stable name of FedExField is FedExField. To negotiate these is to surrender any sense. --Golbez (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
          • In that case, why not call it Ericsson Stadium? After all, it is only BofA Stadium for as long as BofA feels they can profit from having this sponsorship deal. On the other hand, if you are set on it being BofA Stadium, will you oppose a rename when the next corporate sponsor steps in, or will you then cease to assert that BofA Stadium is a stable name? bd2412 T 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Of course I wouldn't oppose a rename, my stance is very simple on that: When the owner of a structure renames said structure, it is inaccurate to then continue to say that is the name of the structure. Not a difficult stance. For example, some people might still like to call that tall building Sears Tower, but that is unequivocally not the building's name anymore. As for "corporate names are unstable," I'd wager non-corporate names are just as unstable these days, considering how few remain. Stable doesn't mean unchanging. It's been BofA Stadium almost as long as Joe Robbie Stadium was Joe Robbie Stadium; what makes one name more stable than the other? (And also, if corporate names are uniformly bad and 'unstable'... would you suggest moving the earlier mentioned article to 233 South Wacker Drive? Since "Sears Tower" should not be considered any more stable than "Willis Tower"? Or does this rule only apply to sports arenas?) --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
              • A principled rule would apply to any structure or event that is likely to change names frequently. bd2412 T 23:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - the structure's owner has changed its name, and its "common name" wasn't an organic one given by the people but rather a previous name. We cannot give that more respect simply because it lasted longer or isn't sullied by corporate sponsorship. --Golbez (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This also from WP:COMMONNAME: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."—Bagumba (talk)
• Oppose - I don't doubt the proponent's intentions, but the way he states his case sounds like he requests a general guideline change that can generally be applied on subjects often subjected to similar name changes. An RM request is not the forum to request guideline changes.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 04:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bagumba. The proper name of the facility is preferable in this case, and as distasteful as some of the sponsor-driven names may be, O.co Coliseum is the facility's proper name, and supported in real use by a multitude of sources. Resolute 15:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Generally, consistency and conciseness are less important WP:CRITERIA than are naturalness, recognizability and precision. When we essentially have a tie between two or more choices per the three main criteria, then we can look at consistency or conciseness. But here the proposed title clearly beats the current title. And we don't favor WP:OFFICIAL names in our titles, in case anyone didn't know. --В²C ☎ 00:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support its known unofficially as the oakland coliseum, news commentators will often refer to it by that name. the old official name was oakland alameda county coliseum, which i agree is no longer appropriate for the article name, but thats very different from what is proposed here. I agree with Born2cycle that while O.co can hold up against oakland coliseum in major ways, its trumped by consistency and conciseness, and that we are not bound by official names.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bagumba. "O.co Coliseum", as much as we may dislike the name, is currently the COMMONNAME, so common sense dictates that we keep the article named as it is for the time being. When this stadium is no longer in use, the page could be moved again, but who knows what the future will bring? Bagumba also rightly notes the slippery slope this proposal would create with other stadiums that have had multiple names in the past, and others that have only had one corporate sponsored name in its existence. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose O.co Coliseum is the common name these days. Using the actual name keeps this article consistent with similar venues, such as Sun Life Stadium and Sports Authority Field at Mile High, which have undergone name changes. -- Calidum 15:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support to have the common name and a clear title, easy to understand. Katy Gallaghon (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose: general consensus is to defer to subjects' right to rename themselves. If a person chooses to adopt a new name, general practice is to take notice of it immediately, even if the common usage based on the history predating the name change is the old name. This is not a case of preferring an official name over an unofficial one, but that the old name is no longer an accurate moniker. To use a different name because one is unhappy with corporate branding is an "I don't like it" approach. The common name after demolition can be addressed when it happens; to attempt to predetermine the name contradicts Wikipedia's guidance on not speculating on the future. isaacl (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Until and unless O.co starts giving us money, we are not at all obliged to give them this free publicity. Instead, we can use the longstanding names. But this discussion should see a larger and broader audience. Let's fire up an RfC at WT:AT. Red Slash 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Would you have proposed we rename Sears Tower to 233 South Wacker Drive if Sears & Roebuck did not donate to the foundation? (I'm picking the old name because, since it was renamed, I'm guessing you'd be against naming it Willis Tower without suitable funds regardless, so I'm going with the "longstanding name") --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The common name and the official name are one in the same. While renaming buildings with sponser names sucks, that is the best way to handle the page names. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - The nomination makes an incredibly compelling argument, and I want to support it. But then I think of articles like Miami Marlins, where I'm sure the bulk of lifetime sources still call them the Florida Marlins. If the common usage in sourcing was not updated with the name, it would be one thing, but common name here probably requires the current branded title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. For this specific example, it has a lot of nicknames, including The Coliseum, The Mausoleum, etc. Even after corporate sponsorship changes the name of sports venues, fans will still refer to it with an outdated name or some type of abbreviation (like "The Cell" for US Cellular Field or "Jerry's World" for AT&T Stadium). But most newspapers will refer to it with it's new name and that's the common use that should be used. The first sentence of the article, like this one has right now, can have the nicknames and other names the venue is known as, but the title of the article would be what the venue is known as now. Patken4 (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How high are the fences for baseball games?

Does anyone know how high the fences are in the outfield when they play baseball in that stadium? The rest of us would sure like to know that information.

Yugiohfan2010 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on O.co Coliseum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090130142830/http://gigantour.com:80/home.php to http://www.gigantour.com/home.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071009200309/http://web.mlsnet.com:80/t110/faq.jsp to http://web.mlsnet.com/t110/faq.jsp#gen01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on O.co Coliseum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090119061644/http://mvn.com:80/miningthegoldrush/2009/01/49ers-and-raiders-to-share-stadium.html to http://mvn.com/miningthegoldrush/2009/01/49ers-and-raiders-to-share-stadium.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Other uses:

Well musical anyway.

• Pink Floyd 9 / 10 May 1977
• Led Zepplin 23 / 24 July 1977
• Bob Dylan, Grateful Dead 24 July 1987

Etc. Loads more, so don't need a list; but some acknowledgement of this alternative history would be beneficial for the reader. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum. 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/20070927213717/http://www.champcarworldseries.com/News/Article.asp?ID=12147 to http://www.champcarworldseries.com/News/Article.asp?ID=12147

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) 01:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Tenants

The Raiders listing in the tenants list is too long and the way I had it (see [1]) looks a lot better SportsFan007 (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Same reasons apply here as in this discussion. In addition, please read MOS:DATERANGE before introducing incorrect date ranges.– Sabbatino (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

RingCentral name

The name is not a done deal yet. From the San Francisco Chronicle: "We have a contract that we are finalizing right now,' said Coliseum Authority Executive Director Scott McKibben. "The lawyers are tying up last-minute loose ends, but the goal is to bring it to the authority for a vote Friday.'[2]—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Right now the talk page for Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum redirects to this talk page, but the article for RingCentral Coliseum redirects to Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum. Should they be made consistent in the interim? isaacl (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The two are now aligned. isaacl (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said thanks to Wbm1058, the two are now aligned. isaacl (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Misleading use of recent New York Times article ...

This article is cited in the article in a very misleading way. The "not worthy of preservation" line comes from a different Times article two years ago.

I would think, and might even add to the article, the good points about the Coliseum that Jack Nicas finds (re the article's hed) would be worthy of mention:

Yes, the Coliseum is ugly, but it is cheap, gritty and fun. The spacious confines allow fans to roam around, spread out and enjoy a comprehensive view of the game. And the park’s dinginess fosters a freewheeling atmosphere, where bleacher die-hards bang drums and heckle outfielders, while upper-deck denizens pack picnics and pass joints. It all adds up to a baseball experience that stands out in the increasingly homogeneous ballpark landscape. If Marlins Park is the flashy new nightclub, and Fenway Park and Wrigley Field are the historic pubs, the Coliseum is baseball’s last dive bar.

He also defends the expansive foul territory (which, per what Baseball Rule has to say about the shrinkage of foul territory and its effect on spectator safety, I would also see as a plus for the Coliseum) as a boon to fans since it creates the opportunity to see some great defensive play.

This is, again, why we're trying to get rid of criticism sections (Frankly, a lot of that section could be better integrated into the rest of the article). Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Raiders

As with all team moves, please refrain from changing the Raiders' end date for the tenancy until the current season has ended. Even though the Raiders have played their last game, their official home is still the Coliseum for the 2019 season, which doesn't end until the Super Bowl is complete. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Raiders currently still have a chance at the Superbowl. SportsFan007 (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

How is this possible? They can make a wild card spot no way they can get homefield in the playoffs. TheBigMan720 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Coliseum is the Raiders' home field until the end of the season, even if they don't play another game there. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Are you against them going to Las Vegas or something? TheBigMan720 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Because it's a fact. During this season, it's their home field; after this season, it won't be. It's that simple. -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a fact and it's the precedent we've been following for some time on similar articles, whether it be a franchise moving to a new city or just to a new facility. A team's tenure may end, but their legal tenancy runs through the end of the season. There's also the possibility that construction delays force the Raiders to stay at the Coliseum longer, a fact that was mentioned in this article ("And, if there are significant construction delays in Las Vegas, the Raiders have the option to play next season in Oakland."). So yeah, as long as the NFL is still in its current season, end dates should remain at "present" to be accurate and to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. No need to rush the end date. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference mismatch

@Mowster: One of your sources in the Public Debt section has a headline from one article and the URL for another. You used

{{cite web | title= If Raiders go to Vegas, Oakland could win financially | url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Alameda-County-quietly-offered-Oakland-a-deal-to-14521322.php |publisher = SF Chronicle| accessdate=December 30, 2019}}

That URL yields an Oct. 14, 2019 article entitled "Alameda County quietly offered Oakland a deal to buy out Coliseum debt — if it paid up front" while the headline is from a March 27, 2017 article. Which one did you mean to use as a reference here? -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pemilligan: Resolved.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowster (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2020

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 as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

---

RingCentral Coliseum → Oakland Coliseum – Stadium has reverted back to its original name, Oakland Coliseum Roberto221 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Roberto221 and Oknazevad: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unsourced claim. oknazevad (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've seen sources saying that the naming rights deal was rescinded, but I haven't seen sources saying that they've actually gone back to the Oakland Coliseum name. Pemilligan (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Oakland Athletics website shows the stadium name as Oakland Coliseum, [3]

Roberto221 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That's because they never started using RingCentral Coliseum on their web site. See the Wayback Machine snapshots for that page. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction, they did. In fact, it took the official Coliseum web site [4] 2 months before they changed the name to RingCentral Coliseum. I should know because I added the version to their Wiki page [5].

Roberto221 (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME: no one here uses this name at all, and media refers to it as "Oakland Coliseum".--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 21:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Jasper Deng. GiantSnowman 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Always best to leave stadia at their unsponsored names anyway, as it removes the need to rename them every few years. Number 57 12:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Seems COMMONNAME to me. We often use the non-sponsored name for article titles if the venue ever had one at any point. For instance Falmer Stadium (not AMEX Community Stadium) and City of Manchester Stadium (not Etihad Stadium). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2020 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 May 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Oakland Coliseum → RingCentral Coliseum – The name of the coliseum is RingCentral Coliseum, per the official website. SportsFan007 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support, name has been changed. 162 etc. (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move. The stadium's only remaining tenants, the Oakland Athletics, refer to it as the Oakland Coliseum, so the advertiser name isn't even in active use. WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME seem relevant here, as pretty much everyone except for the Coliseum Authority themselves calls it either "the Coliseum" or "the Oakland Coliseum". O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Official website: [6] Roberto221 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - we should not use sponsored names. GiantSnowman 11:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  Every Major League Baseball stadium that has a naming rights sponsor uses it as the article title. The most recent move, at LoanDepot Park, was not controversial at all. The only thing that complicates this one, as indicated by O.N.R., is that mlb.com still uses Oakland Coliseum. 162 etc. (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unless it can be demonstrated that RingCentral is now the WP:COMMONNAME and not just the WP:OFFICIALNAME. - Station1 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Even after the renaming, major local news outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle ([7], [8]) and the Mercury News ([9], [10]) continue to refer to it as the "Oakland Coliseum". Rublov (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose at least until the name is more widely known and used in sources such as news and magazines. Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, the corporate name is rarely used and rarely cited in my experience and verified by research. If that changes (before it changes names again) we can revisit at that time. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If we're not going to use the corporate naming rights for stadiums, then why not rename the other 21 stadiums for the teams or cities? Hell, why stop there when we have NFL/MLS stadiums and NBA/NHL arenas that have naming rights that could be renamed too, ...hmmm. I've read all the arguments. Somebody explain this to me...Roberto221 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I also supported the proposal, but the dissenters have a point. Although the precedent in North America is to favour the sponsored name, WP:COMMONNAME can't be ignored. Each article title needs to be considered on its own, and no one policy perfectly covers all circumstances. 162 etc. (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Because we don't rename some due to WP:COMMONNAME. In this case Oakland Coliseum or The Coliseum are verifiably the common names. We don't care for purposes of this encyclopedia what a company pays for the rights to the name if no one is using it or searching for it. In some cases the corporate name is the WP:COMMONNAME (examples such as Petco Park, Oracle Park, Allegiant Stadium, etc...) (which are typically stadiums whose original name was corporate and whose new corporate names are quickly adopted). Gateman1997 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  @162 etc.: This is the same argument we had with Arrowhead Stadium. Sponsors will pay big money to splash their name across the stadiums/arenas, put out the press releases yet we still refuse the change because of nostalgia/sentiment. Funny how it applies to some stadiums/arenas and not to all. Not consistent at all...Roberto221 (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I youtube video, it has been commonly known as "Oakland Coliseum" see any youtube videos containing fireworks show on it. 114.125.12.50 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: Normally I support these kinds of moves, but normally the main tenants and associated media outlets also follow suit very quickly in using the sponsored name (since that's part of the naming rights deal). In this case, as has been pointed out, the A's are still referring to it as the Oakland Coliseum as are secondary sources like ESPN as recently as today. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:59, 26 May 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.

Fixing awkward verb tense

In the opening paragraph, the sentence beginning “In 2017, the playing surface has been dedicated as Rickey Henderson Field…” is a bit awkward. Since it is no longer 2017, I feel like the verb tense should be changed to “the playing surface was dedicated…”.

On a separate note, it might just be my imagination, but it could be a bit ambiguous whether the dedication was temporary or permanent. But again, it could just be my imagination. 2601:601:1100:18D0:19AB:F4C3:F139:5C41 (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)