Jump to content

Talk:Musgrave Park, Cork

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common name

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I wonder whether the recent article move was premature. WP:COMMONNAME guidelines suggest that we use the most common name for a subject, and I am not aware of the "new" sponsor name coming into common parlance. Yet. I wonder even whether many locals or rugby supporters will even be aware of the projected name. Apart from the Irish Independent themselves (who are doing so for obvious reasons - and even then inconsistently), other media outlets use the existing common name. Even the IRFU and tenantclubs have yet to change. I would also note that (for example with City of Manchester Stadium or Barnet Copthall), the "sponsor name" for many grounds isn't automatically used - largely for COMMONNAME and transience reasons. I'm not "anti" the new name (or indeed the change), I might just ask if there are other opinions w.r.t project principles on naming... Guliolopez (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - sorry - my read of these Indo articles is that the ground won't be officially renamed until the first games are played in the redeveloped stadium. As such I recon we wait until then before renaming. I'm moving it back until then. Guliolopez (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably still just talking to myself here, but as of 28 Feb 2015, most media (save for IMN titles for obvious reasons) still favour "Musgrave Park" over "Irish Independent Park". Unless or until this shifts, WP:COMMONNAME guidelines would suggest that the article itself retain and use this common-name. Happy to discuss however (or indeed to revisit in future). Guliolopez (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting given unilateral move

An editor recently moved this article - citing precedent for Aviva Staduim, Etihad Stadium, etc. On the first example, I would note that the Aviva was in effect an entirely new stadium (and existed as an article in its own right well in advance of opening). The second example is a rather bizarre one to select, given that the article on the City of Manchester Stadium specifically DOESN'T USE the sponsorship name - and so does not support the argument for a move. (If anything it is a strong argument against). In general the convention and guideline on the project is to use the COMMONNAME of the subject. As per the previous notes above, there is still very little evidence that "Irish Independence Park" yet represents the name in common use. In fact, I would point out that in a slew of recent news articles in recent days, very few outlets use the sponsorship name - and instead use the common name: Irish Examiner, Limerick Leader, Irish Times, Evening Echo, etc. The only outlet consistently using the sponsorship name is the Irish Independent themselves - and that's hardly surprising. Would love to have a discussion here about it - to confirm evidence-based consensus for a move. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS- The two main tenant clubs still also refer to the ground as "Musgrave Park", so I can't currently align with an argument that this is anything other than the common name. (See Sundays Well club website (1 Sep 2015) & Dolphin club website (1 Sep 2015)) Guliolopez (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For common name, see Munster official website section on the stadium: http://www.munsterrugby.ie/club/irishindependentpark.php See Pro12 official website listing Irish Independent Park as name of stadium used for Munster fixtures: http://www.pro12rugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures_list.php#wgfmtD2dx0grL8Q0.97 See Munster listing ground name as venue for fixtures on official website: http://www.munsterrugby.ie/rugby/results_and_fixtures.php See media reports on fixtures at the location: http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/munster-rugby/winning-start-for-munster-as-stander-saves-sloppy-display-31505342.html http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/pro12/2015/0214/680268-munster-v-cardiff/ http://www.irishrugby.ie/guinnesspro12/34597.php http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/rugby/munster-need-stander-double-to-edge-past-treviso-694463.html LeinsterLad (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for engaging. It really is more in keeping with guidelines to actual respond to comments (on moves in particular) when raised by other editors. Generally speaking it's actually better practice to discuss in advance - given the WP:RM#CM guidelines.
To the point itself, as noted below, listing a number of "counter" examples (which use the sponsorship name) is not in itself an argument in support of the common-name guideline (in fact, it seems to - again - be more supportive of a "it's now the official name" argument - which isn't an argument in keeping with project guidelines). In any event, as per the points I already made above, some of the examples (the Irish Independent themselves, Munster Rugby themselves and the IRFU themselves) are likely to use the sponsorship name for vested interest or contractual reasons. While it could be argued that other media outlets (Examiner, Irish Times, etc) might have their own vested interest in not using the sponsorship name, the same suggestion cannot realistically leveled at the "grass roots" and tenant clubs. As noted, when communicating with their own members, those clubs continue (as of last week) continued to use the name of the group which they seemingly expect their own community and members to recognise as the common-name.
As per my note on your talk-page, please consider reading WP:COMMONNAME and the related WP:OFFICIALNAMES essay. Guliolopez (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I am going to restate the argument and move this back. Burden is on the editor proposing the move to demonstrate common-name and open thread per WP:RM#CM. In short, and to restate:
  1. The only outlets consistently using "Irish Independent Park" (the sponsorship name) are the aligned entities of the Irish Independent and IRFU/Munster Rugby. While there is nothing wrong with this, it doesn't support a move under common-name guidelines.[1]
  2. The majority of other outlets (though perhaps inconsistently) continue as of September 2015 to use "Musgrave Park"[2]
  3. Other (non-media) sources also continue to use "Musgrave Park" - including the tenants themselves of Sundays Well and Dolphin. And even the McDonald's on the site describes itself as the "Musgrave Park" outlet.
Happy to have the discussion, but these repeated unilateral moves (against guideline and CON norms) wouldn't seem the way forward to me. Guliolopez (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is all now redundant. As the sponsorship name never become the COMMONNAME. And the sponsorship deal is now ended.[3]. Closing thread. Guliolopez (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Musgrave Park, Cork. 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:

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) 20:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Musgrave Park, Cork. 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:

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) 22:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Musgrave_Park,_Cork&oldid=1209950054"