Talk:Mizzou Arena

message: Unless citations can be given, the information about the naming controversy should probably either be deleted or summarized in a more neutral tone (without going into all the sordid details). 4.243.152.108 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to USAtoday, it was known as "Paige Sports Arena" the day it was opened. Do you have a reliable source that states the contrary? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   The name was never on the building and no event was ever held in the facility under that name.  It does not rate mention up front in the article.  As I said, a mention further down in the article might be appropriate. Eodcarl (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You would find that both of those statements are hilariously incorrect if you did some basic research or **shocker** read any of the sources I posted on this article or your talk page. Thanks for wasting my time. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Eodcarl's claim of vandalism is off-base, but IMO, Wp:weight should be invoked. As a start, I relocated the section - it is an amusing (or embarrassing, depending on your point of view) aside, that deserves mention, but not the prominence of the first section after the lead. I'm not completely convinced that it belongs in the lead, but this is a close call, and I'll not change it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally the "history" section would go right under the lede so it may have added with the intention of later expansion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

text: That's completely fine; I just wanted to get the sources back in there so it was inarguable; wherever the placement is I'll take it. Feel free to edit it down too for conciseness. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the detailed description of the academic misconduct is excessive given WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, and the fact that this article is about the arena and not the person. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

text:   I read all the sources, and none of them dispute my statement of the fact the proposed initial name was never in use while the facility was actually used.  I talk about articles on the article talk page; no one is allowed to use my talk page.  It is ridiculous for the initial naming rights situation to be in the lead a decade hence.  You are a bully and you have a specific agenda in this case. Eodcarl (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually going by their schedule in 2004-05, the team played three games in the venue to start the season under the PSA name, then two neutral-site games during the renaming process. Thus, inarguably it was under that name when it opened. Nate • (chatter) 04:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

text:   I would agree except for the fact all those former name examples are measured in decades of usage vs. mere days.  It is the difference between important history and insignificant trivia.  It barely deserves mention in the history section considering both the extremely short time it was in use and the reason the naming rights were revoked, but it certainly doesn't rate the prominence of the intro. Eodcarl (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason it's done that way, in part, is to explain why a non-obvious redirect like Paige Sports Arena would be taking someone to an article with a different title. It's important for the lead to explain that the reader is in the right place. Even names which lasted a relatively short time seem to be in the lead paragraph. Wrigley Field opened as Weeghman Park, a name it has held for only about 5% of its history, but the alternative name is still in the opening paragraph. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no Wikipedia "standard" for this, so it cannot be said "that is why it is done that way."  Like I said, we're talking about DAYS, not years or decades.  Days.  It is the difference between an annulment and a divorce.  It is like it didn't happen.  The recent edit is better.  Getting rid of the bold would be even better.  Eodcarl (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was known as the Paige Sports Arena from March 19 – November 26, 2004. The process of eliminating the old branding from banners and promotional material was a drawn-out and expensive process that took months. And if you still think the name-change took effect immediately, consider that a video game released in March 2006 used the outdated name. Please stop beating this dead horse. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am satisfied with the new edit to the article (one you attributed to me, even though another editor did it), a fair compromise.  A mistake in 2006, and the time it takes to change promotional materials, etc. is not relevant to the timeframe the name was officially in place (45 days).  The arena did not open until October, not March.  Either way, you're the one beating a dead horse, not this argument, but the importance, or lack thereof, of the short-lived former name.  I am happy to drop it as long as you leave the article the way it is now.  Eodcarl (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy with the compromise either, a discussion I was not informed about or party to, but that isn't what this is about. When you repeatedly fail to "1984" any mention of the old name, then fail to come to a consensus that compromises with your preference, and then make the changes anyway, you have a problem with all the productive editors who are trying to build an encyclopedia. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Making the article better is exactly what I'm doing; it is not an us and them situation.  "Paige Sports Arena" is mentioned just as many times in the article right now as "Mizzou Arena" so the 1984 reference is melodrama.  In your preferred version the article was written as if it were about the naming rights situation primarily.  The short-lived name is mentioned three times in the article, yet you still are not happy.  Who is being unreasonable? Eodcarl (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming Controversy

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The student section is actually the west end and the double-decked end is the east. I corrected these.Wschart (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Student section, etc.