Talk:Lucas Oil Stadium

message: This was added to a stray article:
Indianapolis plans to have the new Colts stadium complete by the year 2008.  The new stadium seems to offer many benefits for the Colts and the city of Indianapolis.  An event Indianapolis is hoping to hold by the year 2011 is the Super Bowl.  Although the stadium is planned to be complete by 2008, an expanded Convention Center, needed for a Super Bowl, will not be finished until 2010.  To hold a Super Bowl, an NFL team bids with its city in a year-long process.  The year 2011 is still up for grabs, and the Colts are hoping to hold the Super Bowl in that year.  A major difficulty in selling Indianapolis to the Official NFL is location.  Most Super Bowls are held in warm, sunny locations.  Indianapolis will need to sell the Midwest in general, where temperatures rarely exceed the 40s in February.  Another factor for Indianapolis is money.  Indianapolis is small in corporate headquarters and the media market, which attracts advertising and media.  The city of Indianapolis will need to sell and promote all that it is worth.  If the Super Bowl does land in Indianapolis, the event will give Indy a big economic boost.  The future of the Colts and city of Indianapolis is highly anticipated with the new stadium and hopes for a Super Bowl.
If anyone is interested in integrating it into this article... a news story source would be good too. --W.marsh 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed "Closed" and "Demolished" from the sidebar. They didn't seem necessary considering it could be 30 years or more until they apply to this stadium.--Letsgomets1212 16:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sidebar

message: The article indicates that property taxes will be increased by 10% to pay for the stadium. Any truth to that? Jcarlyle 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 10% Property Tax Increase

message: :Image:Lucasoilplanned.jpg 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 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lucasoilplanned.jpg

message: :Image:Lucasoilplanned.jpg 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 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 05:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lucasoilplanned.jpg

message: I think we should remove the proposed stadium template since it's already done and it is ging to be opened soon. Brady4mvp (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it once, and it was reverted.  HoosierState said, and I guess I'll defer, that it should stay until it is officially opened.  -- MeHolla! 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically it's not done, the field hasn't even been installed yet and the south windows are still going up. Personally I'd prefer if there was a tag that said "under construction" instead of "proposed". HoosierStateTalk 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Done.  Template:Stadium_under_construction  -- MeHolla! 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed stadium 

message: The name "Indiana Stadium" was the official name of the stadium when proposed (see:  http://wifinetnews.com/archives/005890.html) and I want to add it back into the article, but don't want an edit war erupting, so here I bring it first.  -- MeHolla! 17:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Names 

message: I'm putting this to the RfC people because we are apparently spinning our wheels on this nickname issue.
The entire conversation is listed above, but let me outline the discussion briefly:
Side Against:
1.  Refutes given sources.
2.  Says that since no official nickname has been given by the Colts, that nothing should be included in article.
3.  Has never heard of it themselves.
Side For:
1.  Provided many reliable, third party sources (listed above) for inclusion of this nickname, including media reports (both local and national), fan blogs, an article about how the man who spent 100+ million dollars naming the stadium does not like the nickname, and a quote from a player himself.
2.  Thinks that no official designation would ever come from the Colts organization, as they have money ties to keeping "Lucas Oil Stadium" out in the public.
3.  Thinks the "I've never heard of it" argument constitutes Original Research.
I think that that is pretty much it.
-unsigned
:I wish to update the bias position views above.
Side for:
1. Provided many newpaper, media, and internet cites that use the nickname.
2. Says such sources constitute an unofficial nickname worthy of entry in the article.
3. Wants citation that the nickname is not as they see it
Side against:
1. Sees the nickname as a media and/or internet creation not used widely otherwise
2. Says nickname is not as widespread but says you cannot cite such claims of nonexistance
3. Does not see the need to add such a nickname in the article
I hope this is slightly less bias than the previous summation. NeuGye (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am new here and not connected with the subject in any way but it seems to me that a good case that 'The Luke' is in common use has been made, with references.  I see no strong case against. It might be phrased, 'known to some as.../known in some circles as...' etc. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have an argument against. Read above. Above all, I ask why the name needs to be included, even if some can say it is used. It is unofficial, disputed, speculation at best. Citing the media as a source is sketchy. Under normal use the media should be citing things in thier stories. If this was another topic, such an inclusion would not be considered factual. If Wikipedia is to be held to a higher standard then we should not be including stuff in articles just because we can. Does adding a nickname in the article enhance the article as a factual source in any real manner? Who can argue with that? NeuGye (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand your case against.  The stadium is called 'The Luke', by some journalists at least.  That is a verified fact and as such justifies its inclusion in the article.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no dog in this fight but read the blue section above and a few of the references. And I agree with Martin Hogbin, it clearly does have a nickname and the article should mention it. ScottJ (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The name is not controversial itself. I have no beef with Luke. It is the inclusion of the name that is. The name is not embraced by anyone connected to the stadium. Maybe a mention here or there by someone connected, but otherwise it is used by those unconnected. Luke only exsists to those who want it to. I still maintain, despite references by the media (which is not a reliable source when a media article is original research itself) the nickname should not be included. Why add something just because you can? This nickname is not accepted in general. Why would you want it tied to the stadium article? NeuGye (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is controversial in itself - I understand that the person after whom the stadium is named does not like the stadium being called 'The Luke' because of a dispute with another company.  A Google search of the subject shows considerable controversy.  The reason that the nickname should be included is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform.  Consider, for example, a person who hears that a particular event will be on at The Luke and who wishes to confirm that the venue being referred to is, in fact, the Lucas Oil Stadium. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Just as a reference many sites I visit call it LOS and I have seen TV stations use it as well JS JS043 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text:   Some fans of drum corps started calling it the Oil Can this year.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.239.142 (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment - "The Luke" Nickname 

message: I don't know if any of you have noticed, but there is an album on Flickr that contains 100+ pics of the "new" stadium that may be used on Wikipedia (all are licensed as CC-ShareAlike). Remember to upload the pics to WikiCommons so other wikis may use them as well. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: "This retractable roof is the first ever that divides lengthwise[7]." is incorrect and not supported by the external link anyway, see Amsterdam ArenA and Gelredome for earlier examples.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunopostle (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim to be first ever that divides lengthwise

message: Should Vince McMahon bring WrestleMania XXXIV to hosting the event in the Lucas Oil stadium?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.241.74 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WrestleMania XXXIV?

message: I'm trying to put Moore Engineers, P.C. (engineer of record) as the primary service engineer on the stadium but I'm not sure how.  If someone could do that here is the link to Lucas Oil Stadiums web site http://www.lucasoilstadium.com/about.aspx.  Moore Engineers, P.C. is listed under "Facts and Information". I'd like to see the correct information on this page.  Thanks! MEP Engineer (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These changes keep getting reverted. It seems that we need an official statement from the stadium owners or information that is published in a reliable independent source, such as a newspaper or engineering organization. Would all be happy if the arena owners sent an official email to a WMF administrator as to which firms they want listed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I only put 2 in that list them. It seems they won an award for it as well. If anyone reverts now they should end up in a deep hole.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering Firms 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Lucas Oil Stadium. 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/20111210014747/http://www.in.gov/iscba/2362.htm to http://www.in.gov/iscba/2362.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402172255/http://a2so4.com/architecture-3/lucas-oil-stadium/ to http://a2so4.com/architecture-3/lucas-oil-stadium/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114030115/http://www.kibi.org/news/indianapolis_international_airport_receives_the_2009_monumental_award to http://www.kibi.org/news/indianapolis_international_airport_receives_the_2009_monumental_award
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114113241/http://www2.indystar.com/users/factfiles/landmarks/0423_stadium_graphic.pdf to http://www2.indystar.com/users/factfiles/landmarks/0423_stadium_graphic.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901040957/http://www2.indystar.com/images/graphics/2006/04/0421_stadium_webcam/ to http://www2.indystar.com/images/graphics/2006/04/0421_stadium_webcam/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721054603/http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=36125%2F to http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=36125%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified