Jump to content

Talk:Rose Bowl (stadium)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Rose Bowl stadium)

Rose Bowl Stadium

[edit]

Should this article be 

to Rose Bowl Stadium? The official site refers to it as such. jareha 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Althought I'm not affilated with Wikipedia nor the stadium, I think we we keep the page as is. Most people just call the facility the Rose Bowl.--BigMac1212 02:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture from Google

[edit]

It's a bit ironic that the picture used has USC markings in the endzones. If anyone comes up with another image, perhaps unmarked or with the home team's markings on the field, feel free to upload it. ••\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\•• 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USC fans traditionally call it their second home, so I see no problem. ;-) But seriously, the RB used to be only for the invited teams until UCLA moved out of the LA Coliseum (which has been USC's home stadium) in the early 1980s. The term "2nd home" comes from the fact that USC has been invited to the Rose Bowl Game more than any other team. This photo appears to have been taken from Google Earth, which due to delays in their photography, also has Dolphin Stadium in Miami also marked with USC in the endzone. This photo is the 2003 RB game, the Dolphin Stadium photo was from the 2002 Orange Bowl Game. If you cound the LA Coliseum, USC has its name painted on three different stadiums in Google Earth as of this comment. --Bobak 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very nice picture at http://www.uclahistoryproject.ucla.edu/Fun/images/AugRosebowl2L.jpg as part of the UCLA history project. It shows the field painted for Michigan and UCLA for the 1983 Rose Bowl game. That might be appropriate. I am not quite up to speed on the fair use as it applies to public university photographs. It is on this article [1] Any thoughts? Group29 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a weird coincidence, that Jan. 1, 2004 sat photo is actually pretty close to accurate as of today's Rose Bowl game. --Bobak 20:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the picture is tagged public domain, the close picture was taken from a flyover, not a sattelite, which is not public domain from Google Earth. Group29 12:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this picture has been removed. Group29 14:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Rose Bowl Edit War

[edit]

Special:Contributions/71.130.195.118 and User:3bulletproof16 are having an edit war over the Junior Rose Bowl, which is also known as the Pasadena Bowl.

Such a game did exist, and a bit of googling finds the information [2]

Pasadena Bowl (Junior Rose Bowl -- 1967); Pasadena, California Results:

  • December 18, 1971: Memphis 28, San Jose State 9
  • December 19, 1970: Long Beach State 24, Louisville 24
  • December 6, 1969: San Diego State 28, Boston University 7
  • December 2, 1967: West Texas A&M 35, Cal State Northridge 13

The missing 1968 score can be found in the Wikipedia article. A bit deeper digging will turn up individual junior colleges' sports pages where they report that they went to the event. There may be no single web page that shows the scores and who organized it. But certainly it was a real and notable thing. Group29 12:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity

[edit]

The Tournament of Roses and UCLA differ in maximum capacity. There are various reasons, but none are documented in the media guide or Tournament of Roses page. If anyone has some specific information that would be helpful. Group29 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest stadium

[edit]

I am understanding that 1998 is when Michigan Stadium surpassed the Rose Bowl as the largest college football stadium in the US. The story may be more complex than that. Some of the changes were: In 1948, before the 1949 game, there were 5,500 seats added to the existing 93,000 to make in 102,500. Then seat backs were added. Ultimately the size was reduced to the present 94,000 or so in 1998. Group29 (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

93,000 + 5,500 doesn't equal to 102,500. Not sure what your point is. There are three organizations here, UCLA, the Tournament of Roses (the Rose Bowl game), and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. UCLA does not use the lower letter-rowed seats, while the Tournament uses all the seats. After this year's renovation, additional seats were lost. But "93,420 fans saw Mexico defeating the United States 4-2 in the 2011 Gold Cup Championship match on June 25, 2011". Big Ten Media guide lists Michigan Stadium's "Capacity: 109,901, Surface: FieldTurf, Largest Crowd/Opponent/Year: 112,118 vs. Ohio State, 2003". UCLA 2011 spring guide: "STADIUM CAPACITY (Record Attendance) 91,500 (106,869)" Tournament press guide: "Stadium Capacity 91,000 (Game Capacity Approximately 88,500)". Ucla90024 (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Michigan stadium loses the top spot in 1949 and does not overtake the Rose Bowl until 1998, when, according to my contributions, the capacity was lowered to the low 90,000s.
Sorry, very poor adding skills was not my point. By the way, that is all good stuff. Obviously both stadiums have held more than their nominal capacity. In articles I have read the official seating capacity was 93,000, then 102,500, but only reported that 5000 were added. My point was, during a certain period, the Rose Bowl was the largest American Football stadium by seating capacity. I do not believe that Michigan Stadium surpassed the Rose Bowl in capacity permenantly in 1956. For example, the 1976 edition of the World Book Encylopedia lists the 25 largest stadiums in the United States with the Rose Bowl first with 101,025 seats* (*asterisk indicating including temporary seats) while Michigan Stadium is number 2 at 101,001, the stated capacity since 1956. This is the Michigan Stadium historical capacity from the latest media guide:
  • 72,000 (1927)
  • 84,401 (1927)
  • 85,753 (1928)
  • 97,239 (1949)
  • 101,001 (1956)
  • 101,701 (1973)
  • 102,501 (1992)
  • 107,501 (1998)
  • 102,601 (2008)
  • 109,901 (2010)
The 1989 UCLA Football Media Guide states: Current seating capacity is 104,091 and has these numbers
  • 57,000 (1923)
  • 76,000 (1929)
  • 83,677 (1932)
  • 100,807 (1949)
All New Grandstand and and loge seats installed since 1971, and new red backs added to 22,000 prior to the 1980 Rose Bowl game.
LA Times Article: COLLEGE FOOTBALL / GENE WOJCIECHOWSKI : In Weighty Debate, Money Would Tip Playoff Scale (May 1994) Who gets the championship? According to the research report, the inaugural game presumably would go to a 100,000-seat stadium. Let's see, there are two of those: the Rose Bowl (104,091), where the mean temperature during the month of January is in the mid-50s . . . or Michigan Stadium (102,501) in Ann Arbor, where the mean temperature is 24.6
Philadelphia Inquirer Great Seats, Eh, Buddy? Beaver Stadium Takes Lions Fans To New Heights (November 1991) RANK AMONG LARGEST CAMPUS STADIUMS IN USA: No. 2 (No. 1 is Michigan Stadium, capacity 101,701). RANK AMONG LARGEST STADIUMS IN USA: No. 3 (No. 1 is Rose Bowl, capacity 104,091; No. 2 is Michigan Stadium).
All 1980s UCLA regular season games had the lowest sections covered with special U C L A tarps. These were removed for the Rose Bowl Game. Only one UCLA regular season game had more than 100,000, the 1988 USC game. In a practical sense, the Bruins never led the nation in attendance while at the Rose Bowl.
Does the Tournament of Roses have any such listing for the Rose Bowl stadium? Group29 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The listed Ref on the infobox does not support the suggested Rose Bowl capacity of 94,392. That is the current record from the 2001 Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl Operating / Management Committee information lists 90,000+. The Pasadena Tournament of Roses Stadium overview states: Approximately 91,000; for the Rose Bowl Game presented by VIZIO Group29 (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1999 reconfiguration, seats with backs were present before UCLA moved there in 1982" not a correct statement. The seating capacity was reduced in 1997 to 98,636 as indicated by the Rose Bowl. Capacity: 92,542, as listed by the Rose Bowl. Ucla90024 (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we are both off by one year since the number jumps down in the 1999 Rose Bowl from the 1998 game. But certainly the seat backs were present for the 1982 season when UCLA began playing there. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Seat backs were put in in the 1990's. In fact they were put in with full height backs and had to redo them with 1/2 height backs so people can have enough leg rooms. That's why capacity reduced. They only did them at the East and West sides of the stadium. They is why the tickets for the Rose Bowl game is $175 each and the end zone seats are $150 each. Current capacity was reduced due to the new stairways put in and the elimination of seats at the concourse. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you (Ucla90024) asserting that no seat backs were present before the 1990s? Thanks, Group29 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are talking about different seat backs. The editor was talking about "individual" seats with seat backs which when installed required the losing of number of seats [3]. Previously the bench seats may have had backs, but didn't change the number of seats. The new individual seats have arm rests and and when installed caused the stairways unevenly [4], as can be seen in photos. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times is reporting that a crowd of 93,226 attended a soccer game. Does the stadium have a different capacity for soccer or is the Rose Bowl website out of date? danno_uk 19:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info boxes

[edit]

There are two info boxes which are not mutually exclusive, yet do not mesh well in this article. One is for the National register of historic places, the other is for stadiums. I put the NRHP inside the stadium, but that looks only slightly better than the two boxes with different widths. I will put a message on that template discussion page to ask what to do when faced with both? Group29 17:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

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 08:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy Dispute of BCS National Championship Game Venues

[edit]

I am disputing over the venue dates after 2010 over these 4 stadiums as the BCS contract appears to be up in 2010 but the templates go to 2018. The discussion can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#BCS Stadium Templates trough 2018 Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. AUTiger » talk 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

Thank you Ucla90024. Sparrowman980 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgers' non-move included?

[edit]

I don't want to start an edit war, but it seems to me that the consideration of the Dodgers playing at the Rose Bowl after their 1958 move to L.A. is a legitimate item to include in the article. Any pro/con discussion? DrBear (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, not worthy to include. There are hundred other considerations made by the Rose Bowl operating company over the years and voted on by the people of Pasadena. The Dodgers considered number of places. Ucla90024 (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most attended game in Women Football(Soccer)

[edit]

http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=103/edition=4644/matches/match=22183/report.html This is the reference website for the attendance of 90185 people FIFA Women's World Cup USA 1999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RosenPopov (talk • contribs) 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament of Roses

[edit]
Sure there is. The Tournament of Roses covers the events leading up to the parade (Bandfest, etc.), the parade and the game. It's all organized by the Tournament of Roses Association. It's just not as commonly used as the names of the individual events. See the Tournament website at http://www.tournamentofroses.com/pasadena-tournament-of-roses Drmargi (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your latest edit. The Tournament is an event. It can't decide there was a need for a larger stadium. The Tournament Association did that. You need to read up on the Tournament of Roses so you're more familiar with the various terms and entities involved. Drmargi (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are trademark names that you can use, such as "Tournament of Roses Parade", Etc. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramic picture of USC-UCLA game at Rose Bowl

[edit]

Looks like a USC supported wanted to take a dig at the UCLA program by posting a picture of UCLA's 28-7 loss to USC at the Rose Bowl a while back. Let's keep this nonsense off of Wikipedia and post less antagonistic image of the stadium. Until someone supplies such a photo, let's keep the USC-UCLA stuff off the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.64.78 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerts

[edit]
  • This article is about the Rose Bowl, whose primary function is the football games, namely the Rose Bowl game. It was built by the Pasadena Tournament of Roses. There is a limitation on how many concerts it can do each year. This year an exception has been made to have the 7 concerts plus the soccer game. Normally, it would not have been allowed to have so many events in additional to the football games. This is not a billboard chart for industrial purposes and should belong to a concert page. Therefore there is no inerest in gross profit in the concerts. The stadium can sit over 90,000 and with floor seating, it can go much higher. Therefore the ratio of actual concert goers vs. capacity is of no imporance. A simple attenance figure will do. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 December 2014

[edit]
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 resulting in a reversion to the original form. Perhaps WP:NATURAL needs to be changed to prefer unnatural disambiguation in order to preserve faithfulness to proper names only. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, quoting WP:RMCI...

lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority). However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

Note that according to Wikipedia:Consensus § No consensus:


Therefore, if a page has been moved from a longstanding title, and it is not possible to move the page back to its original title during the discussion, the default title will be the title prior to the contested move. For example, if an article is created at Soda can and stays there for years prior to being WP:BOLDly moved to pop can, and a move request is filed leading to a decision of "no consensus", the article must be moved back to its longstanding title. This is the case even if the original page was placed at pop can or fizzy drink can or orangutan-flavored soft drink can, as long as soda can took over shortly afterwards and can be determined to be the actual long-standing title.

Therefore, the page is moved back to the original title. Red Slash 05:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Rose Bowl stadium → Rose Bowl (stadium) – This article was recently moved from Rose Bowl (stadium) to Rose Bowl stadium. The move was not discussed and was ill-conceived. The name of the subject of this article is simply the "Rose Bowl", thus the parenthetical disambiguation was appropriate. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Move should've been discussed first anyway, plus the name of the facility is clearly the "Rose Bowl" so "Rose Bowl stadium" is not a "natural disambiguation" at all. The official website for the Rose Bowl Game identifies the facility in text as the "Rose Bowl", on top of the large picture at the top of the page that shows the "Rose Bowl" name on the stadium itself. UCLA's facilities page refers to it as "The Rose Bowl". If "Stadium" is used, it would be a proper noun "Rose Bowl Stadium", which is what the stadium's official page uses. It would seem the use of "Stadium" on that page is to prevent any confusion with the game. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rose Bowl (stadium) was the long standing title until it was moved at 02:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC). Another option would have been to just boldly revert the move. Instead, the RM nominator chose to have a civil discussion. A "no consensus" here might erroneously result in this new title of "Rose Bowl stadium" staying over the longstanding title of "Rose Bowl (stadium). People with no opinion either way should consider doing a "procedural support" to avoid having the new title stay instead of the long standing title.—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Rose Bowl (stadium)" makes it clear that the stadium is typically referred to as simply the "Rose Bowl". "Rose Bowl stadium" gives newbies the impression that is how its typically referred to.—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to have a look at natural versus parenthetical disambiguation, at WP:NATURALDIS. Note that "Rose Bowl stadium" (also sometimes capitalized) is not uncommon in books. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    NATURALDIS should generally be followed. However, much like Mercury (planet) is the main title instead of Planet Mercury, in some cases the seemingly "natural" title is not really used all that commonly. Based on my knowledge of sporting events at this stadium, "Rose Bowl" is the more common name in most sports coverage. Being that this is mostly a sporting venue, I give its usage in sports coverage more weight than travel-related books.—Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the natural disambiguation is so much more ... natural. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Within the milieu of college football, there nothing remotely natural about that "natural disambiguation". The building is called the the Rose Bowl (period). Jweiss11 (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, knowledge like this are some of the things a blind Google search cannot convey.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The parenthetical disambiguation makes it crystal clear that the stadium is called the "Rose Bowl," not the "Rose Bowl stadium." Contrary to assertions otherwise, "Rose Bowl stadium" is not a "natural disambiguation." It's redundant: the word "bowl" is a synonym for "stadium"; writing "Rose Bowl stadium" is no more natural than saying "Rose Bowl bowl" or "Giants Stadium stadium." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it is the "Rose Bowl" and not Rose Bowl Stadium. -- Calidum 06:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Rose Bowl stadium" also makes it clear that it's a stadium named Rose Bowl. More natural, too. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Rose Bowl (stadium)" also makes that clear without giving the false impression that "stadium" is actually part of the name, just like any other instance of using parenthesis to disambiguate, like Yankee Stadium (1923), Tiger Stadium (Detroit), Tiger Stadium (LSU), or FirstEnergy Stadium (Cleveland). A "natural" disambiguation would be like the case of the Miami Orange Bowl, which disambiguates it from its namesake, Orange Bowl without the need for parenthesis. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Kaye, the link you provided suggests a move to Rose Bowl Stadium (capital S) not the current article title. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That link also uses "Rose Bowl" and "Rose Bowl Stadium" interchangeably as the name for the stadium. It's not consistent at all. The name on the facility itself, of course, is "Rose Bowl" --JonRidinger (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WV, the stadium is also called the "Rose Bowl". Jweiss11 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WV: But that does not explain whether parenthetical expression should be used or not.—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

--I suppose it's only an academic question, but how is that "no consensus" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. Consensus ≠ unanimous. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's more that the key issue was if the current title violates WP:NATURAL, and it wasn't really resolved by evidence whether that was true or not. Many people asserted that natural disambiguation here would result in a name that was not just uncommon, but essentially invented. I saw no consensus based on conclusive evidence either way. Red Slash 02:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Paul MacDonald stated, this is academic at this point. However, I'm wary of what "conclusive evidence" you were seeking. Keep in mind Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Consensus in the future: "If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument."—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenants

[edit]

The 1994 World Cup is not a "tenant" of the Rose Bowl, it is an event that the Rose Bowl was a host venue for out of several others. A tenant is a team or organization that uses the stadium regularly as their home field, such as the Rose Bowl Game and UCLA football. Tenants often have offices within the stadium itself and have some degree of say over any physical changes made to the stadium and/or overall scheduling even if they don't own the stadium outright. The World Cup had several events held at the Rose Bowl, but not only was it a temporary thing, the majority of WC games were held elsewhere. The same goes for Super Bowls, championship games, Wrestlemania, and other events that are just there for a very short time. While significant, they aren't tenants, even if they happen every year or multiple years. Stadiums host dozens of significant events every year (the Rose Bowl in particular) and over their lifetime. If we list every notable event held at the Rose Bowl, then the tenant list will be unreasonably longer. The World Cup should be listed, but within the body of the article just like the 1999 Women's World Cup is. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer

[edit]

The extensive list of soccer games has been removed twice and should not return. The Rose Bowl hosts numerous athletic events and soccer is but one, so listing every soccer game opens the article to have every event ever played at the stadium listed, which would completely overwhelm the article. The soccer list as it was already took up a significant amount of space and put undue weight on the soccer matches, which has been an issue at many other stadium articles too. The most important soccer games played there all have their own articles and links to those remain in this article, so details of the game are not appropriate here. We wouldn't make a detailed list of every Rose Bowl game for this article, so why soccer? Why not all the stats for the Super Bowl games played here, or UCLA's football games? --JonRidinger (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rose Bowl (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:

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) 13:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rose Bowl (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:

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) 10:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Association football vs soccer

[edit]

Is there a specific reason "association football" is spelt out as a section title, rather than "soccer" as expected for an American stadium? If not, I will revise. –Zfish118⋉talk

I changed back to "soccer" per MOS:TIES.—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 TR Both Classes

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AshleyNicolasUCM (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ProfHobbit (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rose_Bowl_(stadium)&oldid=1210118716"