Talk:TCF Bank Stadium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Location

Does the "Location on Campus" section really need to be there? Can the information contained there be merged into the top paragraph? Gopher backer 04:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous rendition of Gopher stadium

It might be interesting to keep the previous rendition of the stadium with the "Can O' Gopher" circular ramp that did not make it into the 2007 rendition. 76.17.130.55 23:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits today

I gave this a pretty good work-over today, feel free to change stuff back if you don't agree with it. I flip flopped the two main sections, I think to me it made sense that the funding should come before the construction of the stadium. Besides that I tried to standardize references, provide new ones for old refs that no longer exist on the web, and a few more details and do general copy-edit stuff. I'll work on it a little more tonight (like trying to set some wiki-links and maybe add a couple more refs) and then I'm going to nominate for GA since it seems to be a pretty solid article. The only major stumbling block that I can see is the tag on the top saying things could be speculative in nature, but I think that the fact that the article is well references will offset that. Gopher backer 01:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for all your hard work on this Smith03 02:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I'm putting this on hold for two minor problems:

• Image:Gopher stadium site plan.jpg has no fair use rationale provided.
• "Other potential uses" section is a collection of single sentence paragraphs, I'd prefer to see this more prose'd.

Otherwise an excellent article and so close, in my opinion, to WP:GA. The Rambling Man 09:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

What the picture with the duck/swan (whatever animal is it) has to do with the stadium? Brady4mvp (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's only there because it's from UMore park, which was an essential part of getting the stadium deal done. WxGopher (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The photo of the stadium under construction is 5 months old. Does anyone have a decent, more recent picture showing the progress? Cmadler (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Stadium website

This must be a well-written article, the University's own stadium website uses portions of this article word for word. http://stadium.gophersports.com/about_the_stadium.html Gopherbone (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a possible copyright infringement?--Appraiser (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible, although since that language has been in the article since December 18, 2006, it's possible the the University did lift that from Wikipedia. The original edit cites the Star Tribune (currently footnote 44). All of the cited facts are in that article, so it's possibly original to Wikipedia. Cmadler (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The plural of "stadium" is "stadia"

See [1], where the usage note states that "In formal writing [as in an encylopedia], the Latinate plural stadia is preferred; in other contexts, the Anglicised plural stadiums is more common." See also [2]. Cmadler (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The plural of stadium for most American English speakers (and this structure is in the U.S., so American usage should prevail, or at least be considered) is stadiums. The "Latinate plural" sounds affected and serves no useful purpose. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Vault

The stadium is being called the vault by many students on campus, including the entire marching band and spirit squad. My source for this is that I am a student on the cheer squad and I have many friends in the marching band. However, there are some blogs online that back up this claim:

internet source 1

internet source 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjoonga (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and don't doubt at all what you're saying. But at this time, this information does not belong in this article. The reasons are

1. Wikipedia should not consist of original research. As the link says, This includes unpublished facts, which would fit into what you are saying. Even though you may be 100% accurate in your knowledge, this still would need a good reference. That leads to...
2. Blogs and message boards are not considered reliable references.
3. Finally, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In short what this means, is that Wikipedia should speculate on what may happen in the future, it should only list was is verified will happen in the future. If the reference (even if it's from a relable souce like the STrib, PP or Daily) says the nickname may be the Vault, then Wikipedia still should not run with that information as if it's fact. Rather, what needs to happen is that for this information to be included in the article, it needs to have a relible reference (like the Daily, STrib or Pioneer Press), and that reference should say "the nickname for TCF Bank STadium is going to be The Vault. One exception to this may be if there was a section created called Possible nicknames, but I my hunch is that there is not enough information on this to justify a section.

Hopefully that helps. Does that make sense? Feel free to respond if you disagree. WxGopher (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant your last sentence to say that your hunch is that there is not enough information on this to justify a section? cmadler (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

yep, thanks I fixed it. WxGopher (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to what has been said about the crystal ball content, I've heard people on campus calling it "the Bank" So it is by no means decided what moniker the student body will finally settle on for the building, and probably it won't be until well into next year's football season.134.84.102.169 (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:TCF Bank Stadium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

"Sketches for the regents were available in December 2006 and, pending approval by the Minnesota Legislature, as of June 2007, biosciences was scheduled for completion in 2015." The "as of June 2007" needs to be updated.

Done. Source for April 2009. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The alcohol controversy section doesn't seem to mention any controversy. Was there some backlash against the law from students, the university, or the city? What caused the state to pass the law in the first place?

I don't know. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The regents vote this coming Wednesday on a proposal to ban alcohol altogether. I hope that addition will take care of the subject, -SusanLesch (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help. If they can't be fixed, try and find a new source.

Done. Checklink finds some redirects and a format note but the original links still connect. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This article covers the topic well and has an excellent source of free images (the non-free images all have correct FURs). I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and has a great source of free images. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I removed the picture of the Minnesota state capitol building because it has almost nothing to do with the subject. Being the site of where the bill was debated is tangential at best; by that logic every article about a subject that was debated in the state legislature should also have a picture of the capitol. Further, the caption emphasized the bill being signed at the alumni center, not the capitol. See MOS:IMAGE. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"2014 Changes"

Randomly reading up on stadiums and I noticed that there are two section in this article saying the same thing. One being "2014 Changes" and the other "NFL" under other uses. Both sections are about the same subject of the Vikings using and upgrading the stadium for NFL use while constuction of the new vikings stadium takes place. Seeing this is a GA I didn't want to make any changes that may upset some fellow editors. Littlekelv (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)