Talk:AT&T Stadium/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Opening

ESPN reported that they will start play at the new stadium in 2010 Soxrock 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

I referred to this project yesterday as "AT&T Stadium." There was a report about Jerry Jones and a stadium in the Los Angeles Times, but the reference was actually to the Texas Tech stadium which is called "Jones AT&T Stadium." Jerry Jones has been called in as a consultant to that project. I apologize for the error. - Desmond Hobson 15:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Specs

I have removed the sections laying out technical/mechanical details for the retractable roof and glass doors. This kind of detail seems unnecessary and atypical of other stadium entries. See Lucas Oil Stadium for example. A paragraph or two explaining the mechanics without just a laundry list would be a welcome addition. Rigel1 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CowboysNS-Day.png

Image:CowboysNS-Day.png 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Article ignores the use of Imminent Domain of private corporation; forcing out many homeowners to build the stadium. Texas passed law preventing that but left this project as the only exception.

That should be "eminent domain", not "Imminent Domain".

Cost

Although the original estimage of the stadium cost was $650 Million, it swelled to about B$1.15-1.2, by most reports. However, that is much lower than the B$1.8 reported in this page. So, I am changing that back and referencing it until someone can get the exact cost from Jerry Jones directly :) Aboosh (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The most commonly-cited figure in the local press is $1.3 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.112.157.156 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture

They light up the screen at the Stadium today, I took a picture of it. It isn't the greatest quality but am I allowed to post it? Also how do I go about doing that.. Mantion (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

The following sentence, aside from containing grammatical errors, has no place in the lead paragraph:

Two Quarterfinal matches of the 2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup will be played in the stadium, starting with Costa Rica against Guadeloupe,which will be the FIRST ever sporting event hosted there

So I'm removing it. Also, capitalization for emphasis is not exactly Wikipedia-like. The entire lead paragraph needs some work, but I'll leave that to those who have put their effort into making the rest of the article as good as it is. This section can also be for discussing said edits to the lead paragraph.Scyclical (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Record breaking attendance

Is there another page besides this one that should mention the new record? Not sure how notable it is. [1] Rockingbeat (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

List of sporting venues with a highest attendance of 100,000 or more has had the figure added. Perhaps List of National Football League records (team) could have a section for record attendance. Patken4 (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed for one of the early claims?

Hi,

Pretty complete article. My compliments.

However, citation #8 is used for the first sentence of paragraph 2:

The stadium is the largest domed stadium in the world, has the world's largest column-free interior, and the largest video screen hung from 20 yard line to 20 yard line.

While the citation makes a similar claim, I think it may either be inaccurate, or need clarification to specify largest interior by what criteria.

The Airdock in Akron, OH (Goodyear_Airdock) was for several decades the largest column free structure, and it encompasses an area equal to eight football fields. Within the last 10 years, a hanger was built by Cargolifter_AG that was the first building to have exceeded the Airdock in column-free interior space. As Cargolifter AG is defunct, the facility is now in use by Tropical_Islands as an amusement facility.

Again, I'm not certain the claim by the reference is entirely false. However, it seems to perhaps be a dubious marketing claim. The Tropical Islands wiki page has links to largest buildings by volume and area .. and I suspect these buildings (both the Cargolifter and Airdock included) are larger in area without poles and in total volume, than the new stadium.

Respectfully,

Sabhain (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the dome's maximum diameter in meters? Is it the largest? and, why is it not on the wikipedia list of largest domes? answers greatly appreciated,sean --Autodoctor (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Road infrastructure

I would have thought that something of this size, drawing so many vehicles, would have been placed next to a freeway (like the old Texas Stadium) with its own access ramps. Instead, based on a Google maps photo (taken mid-construction), it appears that the access is via surface streets. That doesn't seem very well thought out, though that's neither here nor there where this article is concerned. (Though having grown up in the area, it seems par for the course to make existing traffic problems even worse.) But I think it might be worthwhile to mention its road access and any road improvements (if any) that were made. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Stadium nickname

It's not uncommon for media and fans to refer to Cowboys Stadium as "JerryWorld."

When you search for "JerryWorld" on Yahoo!, the official website is listed as the third result.
"JerryWorld" results on Google Search list the same website as #2.

Cowboys Stadium is also nicknamed JerryWorld, Jerry World or Jerry's World by:
The Daily Texan,
a New York Giants fan website,
an article on NBCsports.com,
local NBC affiliate's website,
alternative Dallas newspaper,
multiple Fort Worth Star Telegram articles,
a fan's uploaded picture description,
a description of the nickname,
from USA Today,
New York football blog,
conservation website,
Arkansas news channel,
scout.com,
and tons of others too long to list here.

In the infobox stadium documentation, the description for the nickname parameter, it mentions nothing about only including "official nicknames" but just Insert nicknames of the venue. Even if the information is included in the article, there is no reason for it to be excluded in the infobox. If a parameter in the infobox is already included in the rest of the article like the stadium's name, the date of its opening, architect, operator, and tenants why bother having the infobox at all? The only way JerryWorld, Cowboys Stadium most used nickname, will remain off the infobox is a change to the parameters to the Template:Infobox stadium. NThomas (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time I am writing this. For some reason it did not stick the first time.

"JerryWorld" as you seem to put it is first off not grammatically correct. If, and I mean if, it should stay then it needs to read as Jerry's World. However just because the infobox does not say official does that mean we can put any nickname that someone has in there? I say do away with that line in the info box as it has been removed from the infoboxes of several other NFL teams' stadium pages.

I do not see Ford Field's nickname as "The Garage", the Georgia Dome as "The Bird Cage", Raymond James Stadium as "The New Sombrero" or "RayJay", University of Phoenix Stadium as "The Big Toaster", American Airlines Center as "The Hanger" or Minute Maid Park as "The Juice Box"

I do not see the Redskins referred to as "The Deadskins", or the Eagles as "The Filthydelphia Eggles" or Arrowhead Stadium for the Chiefs called "Air Head Stadium" where the "Chefs" play. Oh and I can find references to ALL of those nicknames. Just because you find something written doesn't make it true.

As I have stated nicknames are covered in the article, although only a few of the many I have heard, and that is where it should stay. If this needs to be open for discussion then that is the way to go and it should stay off the page until we have consensus. Fair enough? Thank you! Bigcats lair (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So I just checked the other 31 NFL teams Wiki pages for their stadiums. Of the 31 teams: 17 had no nickname or just the name of the stadium and 14 had some form of nickname. Of those 14 some were very debatable and should be challenged themselves. Bigcats lair (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, JerryWorld is grammatically incorrect. The single word nickname and W capitalized is however the most common used variant. For grammatically correct information, check out Wiktionary. If you would look at the American Airlines Center article, you'll clearly see the nickname you say isn't listed. Team nicknames are a separate issue that has no merit in this discussion. If you'd like to debate unofficial derogatory nicknames, lets talk about that on Talk:Dallas Cowgirls (which redirects to Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders). This discussion is about the Cowboys Stadium nickname not about the stadium's namesake's nicknames. I see no reason why JerryWorld, the most commonly used nickname shouldn't be used this article's infobox, as long as the nickname parameter is included in Template:infobox stadium. NThomas (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, JerryWorld or Jerry's World are together the most commonly used nicknames for the stadium and I don't see any reason either that it shouldn't be used as the stadium's nickname. Afterall, this is a "wiki" site (the wiki site?) and theoretically if another nickname becomes more prominent (as "The Death Star" is gaining traction in the Dallas area), the listed nickname can be easily changed. I want to point out that since you wrote your last comment, bigcats lair, on this subject, the AA center has been marked with its nickname, "The Hangar", and Minute Maid Park has been marked with "The Juice Box". If you disagree that Jerry's World or JerryWorld (a reference to a theme park such as Astroworld, SeaWorld, Disney World) is the primary nickname, then perhaps the infobox should go the way of the Metrodome and be edited to include ALL of the currently used nicknames and whittled down as things fall out of favor.

Is 2 enough for a consensus or do we need to find more because it's 2 in favor, 1 against so far. Kayakyakr (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It is in the article and that is sufficient. As a long time, die hard Cowboys fan I actually find those nicknames degrading as do my Cowboys friends. Bigcats lair (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I know many "die hard" cowboys fans who would disagree. Do I need to get them on here too? I'm beginning to suspect that your guarding of this article is against the spirit of wikipedia. That you are a fan of the Dallas Cowboys may prevent you from maintaining an unbiased point of view in this matter, as we have well established that JerryWorld/Jerry's World are undeniably this stadium's current most common nicknames, potentially disparaging though they may be. Kayakyakr (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As early as 2006, the stadium was called “The New Cowboys Cathedral” and later “the cathedral of football.” I have heard and like, "God's House" and "God's New Residence"... So where to start and where to end? Isn't Wiki to give accurate info? The nicknames proposed are not official and some are degrading and could possibly upset people. Thus not in the "spirit" of Wiki. Lots of articles on the Internet that call it "Jerry's World" are simply poking fun at the Cowboys or are sports writers that do not like the Cowboys. I have suggested that a nicknames section be added and they can go there. Some are already mentioned in the article itself. However, it opens itself up to every Cowboys hater to add nicknames that are profane. Bigcats lair (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Both the ones you "like" could be considered degrading to other teams and religions across the world. Go figure. The stadium is "Jerry's World", but as you're playing guard dog over this, I will cede it to you. I'll be happy that Jerry's World redirects to this entry. I do feel that the nicknames mentioned in the article are inappropriately positioned as they have nothing to do with the design and construction of the stadium. Kayakyakr (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That is why I moved the name info to a new section... Bigcats lair (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea it was me that put JerryWorld twice but i think Jerry Jones deserves credit because he paid for alot of the stadium. If you look up the stadiums mentioned above, most of them do or have had the nickname given.I have never heard anyone use the nickname with "cathedral" involved because it's blasphomy. the person would face much criticism. I've been a fan for all my life and i dont mind using the name JerryWorld. It's lagit and many people use it. Nicknames dont even have to be gramatically correct. Snoop Dogg isnt proper spelling, but it's known all over the nation. All i got to say is i aggree with the writer of the paragraph before NThomas's paragraph, i partially agree with NThomas himself and i heavily disagree with Bigcats lair and Kayakyakr. If you got any more comments, get at me and maybe we can have a "fun"(sarcasm) email discussion. -Mc134 —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

What about the "Death Star?" It is a common name for the stadium to locals in the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.192.236.140 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I also concur that the Death Star should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.192.236.140 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Gallery

Galleries are generally discouraged. If any of the videos or images I removed are particularly useful in this article, please place them ajacent to the text that the pictures illustrate. The link to the commons at the bottom of the article links to many more than just these images. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening overdone?

The "opening" section is overdone.

We really only need firsts for:

First big event of a given type, e.g. first concert, first sporting event, first speech, etc.
First Cowboy game, first Cowboy regular season game, first Cowboy playoff game

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Tenants

The INFO BOX is becoming loaded with Tenants.

Dallas Cowboys (NFL) (2009- ) Big 12 Championship Game (NCAA Football) (2009–2010) Cotton Bowl Classic (NCAA Football) (2010- ) Super Bowl XLV (NFL) (2011) NBA All-Star Game (2010) NCAA Men's Final Four (2014) 2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup Manny Pacquiao vs. Joshua Clottey (March 13, 2010)

The Dallas Cowboys are the true tenants of the building. All of the other "events" are just that... events. What are your thoughts in having Tenants show the "Dallas Cowboys (NFL) (2009 - Present) and Super Bowl XLV (NFL) (2011). The only reason I include the Super Bowl is that it is truly a major event. All of these other events are already listed in the article so cleaning up this section would be easy. Thanks, Big Cowboy Kev (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Capacity

While listed with a capacity of 80,000 under many sites including Wikipedia itself, Dallas Cowboys stadium in fact has a capacity of up to 110,000. For the NBA All Star game, the stadium reached 108, 713 ^[1]. The stadium reached over 105,000 for the regular season debut against the New York Giants ^[2]. The capacity of up to 110,000 people makes Dallas Cowboys Stadium the biggest American football stadium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjh7311 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,I am confused as to the overall dimensions of the dome's interior. Is it larger than Oita dome in japan? Why is it not on the list of world's largest domes?--Autodoctor (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hay controversia en cuanto a la capacidad real del estadio. Dado que es un recinto multiusos, aunque su uso primordial sea el fútbol americano (NFL - Dallas Cowboys), es lógico que dependiendo del deporte practicado la capacidad varíe ya que no es lo mismo que se dispute un partido de la NFL a que se celebre un fin de semana el All Star de la NBA o que se dispute un combate de boxeo o que en verano vengan equipos europeos de fútbol y disputen amistosos de pretemporada o preparación. Pero hay cifras diferentes. Normalmente se encuentra en casi todas partes que el estadio tiene capacidad para 80.000 personas, pero se dice que se puede ampliar a 100.000 espectadores con gradas supletorias, pero ¿para qué deportes es eso? además, hay que añadir que en la traducción al español, la capacidad que sale es de 108.731 espectadores, ¿cómo es esto posible? ¿en qué deporte? ¿por qué en la web en inglés salen esos 80 mil ampliables a 100 mil y en la web en español salen más de 108 mil? Sería interesante conocer los datos de diferentes capacidades máximas oficiales según el deporte practicado: fútbol americano, fútbol europeo o "soccer", baloncesto, boxeo... ¿sería posible eliminar gradas y colocar una pista de atletismo? ¿qué capacidad tendría entonces el estadio? Me parecen curiosos los fondos o como ellos los llaman, las "end zones" o zonas de gol. Me pregunto por qué motivo no le han dado continuidad al graderío normal del estadio y le han restado capacidad haciéndolo así como lo han hecho. ¿Es así como pondrían gradas supletorias ampliando la capacidad a 100.000 espectadores? ¿por qué son así los fondos? puede que sea por las puertas retráctiles de cristal que tienen, pero ¿para qué han puesto ahí esas puertas enormes? ¿para convenciones? ¿para abrirlas en los conciertos y que la gente de fuera, previo pago de su entrada, también lo pueda escuchar? Me gustaría saber cuál es el motivo de renunciar a todas las localidades que podría tener el estadio de haberle dado continuidad a los fondos en la misma línea que el resto del graderío. ¿No tendrían más ingresos en abonos de temporada y vendiendo entradas para NFL habiendo hecho eso? ¿por qué han renunciado a eso y a esa capacidad total construyendo así los fondos y colocando ahí esas puertas? ¡Un saludo a todos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.118.91 (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Timeline cleanup

Is anyone opposed to me moving the timeline or removing some sections of it? It's very listy and messy. Mahanga (Talk) 21:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Boxing Attendance

I think the boxing attendance on the sidebar should be removed because it isn't the record attendance for the stadium. The reason the football attendance is posted is because football is the stadium's primary use and basketball is the actual record attendance. If anyone thinks otherwise, please leave your message here before i decide to remove the boxing attendance {..::M@®©™ ::..} (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

3A state championship

The 3A State High School Championship game will be in this stadium this Friday. Will anyone be there? If so, let me know, so I know if I need to post the recording. 66.19.101.116 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Art Program

Just added a segment on the contemporary art program at the stadium and it was immediately deleted. The program is discussed prominently on the Stadium's website, publicized by the Jones family, a major monetary expense, a big deal culturally... It belongs here. If the problem was my formatting, someone else do it. Info: http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/art_gallery1.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittenpuff 123 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Largest interior?

The first section claims that it's the "world's largest column-free interior" (I found a fact sheet that says it's about 104 million ft^3). The Aerium in east germany is called the "world's largest single hall without pillars inside" with 194 million ft^3 on it's english wikipedia article. Isn't that a contradiction?

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.218.126 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cowboys Stadium lost video board world's record (and nobody noticed)

The stadium only held the record for 4 months according to the Dallas Morning News, the article needs to be updated [2]. It's the second largest today, and will be the third largest as soon as a video board under construction at the Charlotte Motor Speedway is finished. Guinness World Records also says its no longer the largest [3]. 173.59.163.102 (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC) It still does hold the world record for the world's largest scoreboard! Here's the proof! http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/12000/largest-scoreboard Scca8704 (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Image of soccer in Cowboys

this article need a image of the soccer configuration of this stadium, that fix very well--Feroang (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

Why is this section so far up the page. There's only 1 citation in the whole thing and it's basically all subjective statements. This should be re-written or removed unless more factual information is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.204.47 (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved, kind of, but not exactly, because of the move-warring that's been going on here. AT&T Stadium is the title for now. Future attempts to move should go through a new RM. --BDD (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Cowboys Stadium → AT&T Stadium – Page was moved there several weeks ago, but was moved back by an inexperienced user due to opinions on the stadium name change. Attempt to move page failed because of small edit history that now exists there; CSD:G6 deletion pending. Also see related discussion in this RfD. RBBrittain (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: Regardless of what the WP:OFFICIALNAME might be, do most (non-affiliated) reliable sources refer to it as "Cowboys Stadium" or as "AT&T Stadium"? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sports and news outlets are already referring to it as AT&T Stadium (see this ESPN recap for an example). Obviously you'll still be able to find references to the previous name, but the standard procedure I've seen for stadium articles is to use the current name. It's only after a stadium is torn down that you sometimes see a previous name used for the article title, such as Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati, which was known as Cinergy Field the last 6 years of its existence. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  - Yes, major reliable sources in the American sports media are already using the new name, and yes per the "Consistency" factor of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA the standard procedure is to use the current stadium name for all venues of the major professional sports leagues in the United States. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Please don't take it personally. I only had the guts to move it back due to:
1. AT&T being ambiguous and name many sports venues.
2. the fact that Cowboys Stadium was more popular with the fans
3. to establish by consensus as to whether or not the practice of naming a sports venue after a major bank or phone company has gone overboard. Zoozle102 (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The move I made may be temporary and it can be moved back, but it might be better to consider an AT&T disambig page for the stadiums that have these agreements. Zoozle102 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. There do seem to be quite a few AT&T stadia (per the article hatnote). Some form of disambiguation may be desirable if we choose a name that has "AT&T" in it. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  - The problem is that there are not very good options for an article title for such a disambiguation page. Each venue has a unique variation of the name, and thus results in all the articles having their own natural disambiguation titles. An AT&T stadia title is not good on grounds of MOS:TIES since "stadia" is not very common in American English ("stadiums" is used instead), and all theses venues are in the United States. Thus, it was just easier sticking a {{distinguish2}} hatnote on all these articles, rather than arbitrarily selecting one article to move to a parenthetical disambiguation title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Any reasons that touch on the opinions of fans towards the name or of people in general about naming stadiums after corporations are irrelevant to Wikipedia naming conventions and this discussion. Even if every Cowboys fan on Earth hates the name, it's still the name. Wikipedia does not reflect the wishes of a particular fan base or group; it reflects the published facts. Same for debating whether stadiums can or should be named for corporations. There's a place for that debate, but it isn't Wikipedia. Consensus relates to how Wikipedia policies are formed and enacted, and changed as needed, but has to do with Wikipedia-related issues, not the merits of naming rights or any similar topic.

While there are several other facilities AT&T has the naming rights to, Wikipedia has a fairly clear policy on disambiguation and using titles. As of now, the hatnote at the top of the article acts as a way to diffuse possible confusion. Other options if consensus determined would be to make "AT&T Stadium" a disambiguation page, make an article called "AT&T Stadium (disambiguation)" and leave this article titled "AT&T Stadium" since it is the primary topic, or name this article "AT&T Stadium (Arlington)" or something similar. As it is now, each facility with the AT&T name has a slightly different name, so none of them have the exact same title, negating the need for disambiguation. Having "Cowboy Stadium" redirect to "AT&T Stadium" also helps for anyone who may not be aware. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not always use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs, and the existence of "slightly different" names does not dictate primary topics, nor does it negate needs for disambiguation (in general). —BarrelProof (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Never said the existence of slightly different names dictates Primary Topic. Sources indicate primary topic. I was pointing out that if a disambiguation page were created, this article would (likely) be the primary topic for "AT&T Stadium", but I am of the opinion that a disambiguation title (such as "AT&T Stadium (Arlington)") isn't needed because of the slight differences in name among the other facilities with the AT&T name. The only other facility with both "AT&T" and "Stadium" in the title is Jones AT&T Stadium. San Antonio's AT&T Center is listed on the AT&T Building page, which is a disambiguation page. That could be an option to list all the sports facilities there and use that in the hatnote instead of listing them all separately. In any case, I think a hatnote is sufficient at this point.

As for official names, about the only time I've seen sports facilities not use the official name is when it's not used by outside publications. In looking at the list of NFL stadiums, all of them are titled with the current names. But keeping this article titled "Cowboys Stadium" isn't an option. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We understand these stadiums are expensive to build, but why can't they find some other way to raise the money? If teams like the Yankees and Dodgers can name there venues after the local teams, why not the cowboys?

there see reports Jerry Jones was planning to do this all along but for whatever reason deccided to wait and use the team name temporarily — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.101.100 (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This point is irrelevant in the discussion. You're debating the merits of naming rights; we're talking about the title of the article and if it needs disambiguation or not. If the Dodgers sold the naming rights to Dodger Stadium, the name of the Wikipedia article would also change and "Dodger Stadium" would be redirected to the new name. I'm curious why this article was moved back. The name of this stadium has already been changed to AT&T Stadium and third-party sources are using the name as well. What needs to be decided that having the article under its actual name leaves unresolved? The typical procedure has been to move stadium articles to their current name if it changes (see FirstEnergy Stadium (Cleveland) as a recent example). --JonRidinger (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The policy on Wikipedia is not to necessarily always use the "official name" that is promoted by the owner of a property. Please see WP:OFFICIALNAME. The policy is also that someone can revert an undiscussed page move if they object to the change. There was an undiscussed page move on 25 July. Someone who objected to the change then reverted that move on 16 September. Once an undiscussed move is reverted, the proper procedure for someone who prefers a different name is to file a move request, and that happened on 17 September. Further moves should wait (i.e., the article should stay at Cowboys Stadium) until the discussion of the move request is officially closed. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of OFFICIALNAME, but don't also forget WP:NAMINGCRITERIA a previous editor mentioned above, which states: "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject and "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." First the "Cowboy Stadium" name is only 4 years old, so it's not like we're talking about a long established name like Dodger Stadium, Second, it has already been demonstrated that the AT&T Stadium name is used consistently in both primary and secondary sources, in particular, the official stadium website. OFFICIALNAME is in place to prevent articles from being titled with obscure or largely unknown "official" names, which is certainly not the case here. The reasons given for opposing the article move back to AT&T Stadium (where it was moved on July 25 with no objection) and why it was moved back to "Cowboy Stadium" are largely based on fan opinion of the name change (Dallas is not the first fanbase to be upset by the renaming of their stadium...see Denver and Cleveland), not Wikipedia naming policy. The initial article move on July 25 to AT&T Stadium was not controversial or challenged and followed the pattern of similar stadium articles. The requested move here should've instead been made to move it back to Cowboy Stadium. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I support the article being called Cowboys Stadium. AT&T has become an ambiguous name for sports venues (and I have nothing against the phone company)

What happened in Cleveland and Denver? 174.236.33.119 (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A name being ambiguous doesn't mean we keep it at the previous name, especially when numerous primary and secondary sources use the new name. Instead, we'd use something to disambiguate, such as the hatnote already present to direct readers to similar articles they may be looking for and/or something in the title like "AT&T Stadium (Dallas Cowboys)" or "AT&T Stadium (Arlington, Texas)". As for Cleveland and Denver, both had stadiums with non-corporate names (Cleveland Browns Stadium and Mile High Stadium) and both eventually sold them (Cleveland's was just a few months ago). Denver's was more complex because the Denver Post refused to use the sponsored name in articles for a few years, which obviously affected secondary sources (though this was before Wikipedia). In both cases, yeah, the fans didn't like it, but that resentment lasted on a large scale maybe a year (same in Cleveland going from Jacobs Field to Progressive Field a few years ago) as people got used to it. Having this article title as "Cowboys Stadium" now is confusing and misleading and just plain inaccurate. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC

still, we support the article being name "Cowboys Stadium". If you're a baseball fan you know AT&T is used on San Francisco Giants's ballpark 174.236.99.237 (talk)

You need to cite Wikipedia policy and precedent to support your preference for the name. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason and what you think of the name of the stadium is irrelevant. Also, San Francisco's park is AT&T Park; not AT&T Stadium. There are several buildings named after AT&T (see AT&T Building), including the AT&T Center in San Antonio. Note, there is was no need to disambiguate the titles of AT&T Park and AT&T Center, but they do have hatnotes to help readers who may be looking for one or the other. And yes, both previously had different names (AT&T Park was Pacific Bell Park and AT&T Center was SBC Center) and the articles were moved to the current name. There are countless examples on Wikipedia of articles having similar or even the same titles as another. I have yet to see actual Wikipedia reasons given for why this discussion is even lasting this long. The article should've never been moved back to Cowboys Stadium in the first place. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

it seem you JonRidinger support the article having corporate names then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.99.237 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 23 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Irrelevant. It's about the article title matching the title of the subject. It's part of Wikipedia being neutral and adhering to reliable sources. I honestly don't care what the stadium name is. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support move My quick survey of articles written about the Cowboys football game yesterday all refer to the stadium as "AT&T Stadium". Per WP:COMMONNAME, this article should be moved to "AT&T Stadium". — X96lee15 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Article now at correct title -- AT&T Stadium

The article is now at AT&T Stadium again -- and that is where it will stay pending any future name changes. All Dallas Cowboys media uses the new name; so will Wikipedia. Bumm13 (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a move request that is still under discussion as recorded above. If you have an opinion about what the title of the article should be, I suggest for you to participate in that discussion. The page should be kept at its prior long-term stable name (Cowboys Stadium) until the move request discussion is closed. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. The article is back at the old title per your arguement. Zoozle102 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's see here. Article is moved in July with no arguments per the standard for major stadium articles. Article is moved back months later because a fan doesn't like the name and corporate naming rights. Why are we having this discussion again? Said fan has now moved the page twice (out of 3 times) and all three times it has been moved, an anonymous editor has followed with disruptive edits to create an edit history requiring an admin to delete the page and move, which each have done. The "discussion" has been almost non existent. Support for leaving it at Cowboys Stadium has relied almost exclusively on opinion of the name, completely disregarding established policy, sources, and precedent. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems like a pretty cut-and-dried situation. WP policy and guidelines are pretty clear here. I'm good with calling the discussion closed. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, which describes how move discussions are properly closed. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It can actually be closed now since it has been listed 7 days based on the original time stamp. No case has been made for why it should remain at "Cowboys Stadium" nor was a case ever really made for the first move back to Cowboys Stadium. Challenging a page move should really require citing actual Wikipedia policies to even warrant a discussion. All it needs, yet again, is administrative assistance to delete the edit history that was created at AT&T Stadium. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

don't know why you're frustrated at this discussion taking place. It's clear that CS is more popular with some editors and it's better to wait as BarrelProof suggested. 09:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

JonRidinger stated above he doesn't care what the stadium is called, so why is he upset at this argument? 09:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.64.91 (talk)

The discussion regarding the proper name of this stadium has ended. Further moves to other names that are in no way official will be responded to with blocks. Also, anonymous users can comment about article matters but ultimately, they have no authority to dictate whether an article fits in with Wikipedia policy or not (via repeated page moves against consensus, etc.). Bumm13 (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Better yet, I have semi-protected the article from moves by those who are not autoconfirmed users for a duration of one month. Bumm13 (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Why did you declare that the discussion of the name has ended, but not formally close the discussion per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mass Transit

Tagged "only stadium without mass transit"... a lot of NFL stadiums tend to be on the outskirts of areas. Knoper (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

True. The one in Glendale, Arizona doesn't, either. 95.90.213.109 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Video board size

There's an entire section and numerous mentions in the article about that the video board is very large. However, the article fails to give the dimensions other than buried in a sentence is "... a punt by Tennessee Titans punter A. J. Trapasso hit the 2,100 in. screen above the field ..." Without knowing the aspect ratio that figure is of little use.

How many feet (or inches) wide and tall is it? As several mentions are made of it being hit by football punts how far off the ground is it during football games?

As it's HDTV it's probably a 16:9 display meaning the dimensions are 1,830 x 1,029 inches (152.5 x 85.8 feet) which nets a 2,100 inch display. That's guesswork based on the assumed 16:9 aspect ratio and that 2,100 inches is accurate and not rounded for marketing purposes.

The article mentions "The video board is also the primary attachment point for up to 370,000 pounds of concert and theatrical rigging" but fails to say how much the video board weighs.

It also says the board was retrofitted with winches so that it could be raised for a U2 concert. That is surprising to me. The thing was not constructed in the first place so that it could be lowered to the ground for maintenance?

Is it two separate video boards back to back? In File:Cowboys Stadium configured for basketball.jpg it appears there may be also be smaller video boards on the sides. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Related to the questions raised above is this news article mentions the NFL competition committee was looking into the video board's height as being an issue as a punter could intentionally kick a ball into the board to burn time off the clock. Apparently they are (or were) re-doing the down but not restoring the clock. Were the rules ever changed and/or was the stadium forced to raise the display so that punters could not hit it so easily? --Marc Kupper|talk 17:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Another discussion

There is a hot debate as to whether the new Falcons stadium in Atlanta should bear the Mercedes name despite the SuperDome having that name already. Interested? See WP:RM listed under 11/27/2015. 2015Shoppr (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

'Debate' closed it was started by a puppet master of whom 2015Shoppr is yet another puppet. Red Jay (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dubious claim about column free interior

Isn't this building a bigger single span column free building? 95.90.213.109 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering that the article making the AT&T Stadium claim is ten years old, and was unsourced to begin with I don't think it is a reliable source anymore. Going to pull it out of the article unless somebody can find a contemporary source to confirm. SixFourThree (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on AT&T Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on AT&T Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on AT&T Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on AT&T Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

^ [4]
^ [5]

[1] [4]

[2] [5]

[1]

[2]