Talk:Arena Corinthians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleArena Corinthians was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2013Good article nomineeListed
February 8, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 2, 2024Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 26, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Arena Corinthians will have the largest video screen in the world?
Current status: Delisted good article


File:NewCorinthiansStadium.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:NewCorinthiansStadium.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium name[edit]

FIFA give the name Arena de São Paulo to the stadium. You can see in the 2014 FIFA World Cup page and in the Portuguese and Spanish pages. I moved the page to the new name. --Carioca (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

High level of controversy[edit]

This article Arena Corinthians has a high level of controversy. Corinthians Team is unpopular in Brazil as a team that is notably and demonstrably buying titles (they robbed 2002 Copa do Brasil, 2009 Copa do Brasil, and all, most brazen theft was the 2005 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, and tried to rob others too) and have connects with the Brazilian media mafia. This stadium was funded hastily and in a highly suspect and controversial, generating a huge national controversy in Brazil. The World Cup Stadium in São Paulo should be the Morumbi, but purposely the government made ​​impossible requests to fulfill, to have an excuse to remove the Morumbi from Cup, and enjoy the chance to build a stadium and simply surrender it to Corinhtians. Clearly been held in Brazil, an attempt to do a forced aggrandizement to Corinthians, with the help of the government itself (former President Lula even was a supporter of Corinthians, and the idea is that the Corinhtians, being a "mass team", may serve to "controlling" the Brazilian people or tame him before major problems of the country). The article does not say anything about it. I think even unfortunate highlight this article as GA, it's like trying to highlight an article about a thief or a murderer. Brazil has 200 million inhabitants, 30 million are fans of Corinthians and 170 hate this team and all that it represents. I'm warning you this article will never be stable, because of the level of controversy in which he engages. Rauzaruku (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's unnecessary to say how much it's subjective. According to independent group Placar Real, Corinthians was the 5th team more prejudiced in the 2012 national championship and, therefore, lost its space in Libertadores da América by arbitration errors. This year, Corinthians wasn't favoured once, according to same. Same way, one could argue that there are no proofs that Corinthians "bought" any championship, that the supposed "errors" were purposed, and the championships you cited are only a fraction of the trophies the team managed to win last years. I don't know any research that confirms that 170 million Brazilians hate Corinthians, I'd like that you provided the scientific experiments that shows it. The "impossible requests" that FIFA asked for Morumbi were, as far as I remember, parking slots (that's a fair request, if you ever gone to Morumbi stadium), and the stadium was disqualified for don't presenting any sufficient project until the deadline. Moreover, I don't know why Wikipedia couldn't highlight an article about a criminal, if the content is sufficiently encyclopedic. The stadium will be paid with borrowed money (Corinthians presented guarantees that he'll pay) and tax incentive (granted to all enterprises on the east side of the city). I accept our warning, but your accusations are unsourced. Leonardo Piccioni de Almeida 17:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost funny you mention that, how a team can be world champion in a year , and in the other year become so "weak". It's very clear that there was extra-field help in a year, and annulment of help on the other, to not be so obvious. The robbery in favor of the Corinthians, in Brazil, is notorious documented (A retired referee putted to officiate a game played bt Corinthians, 300 penalties in the same competition, free kick with ball rolling that results in goal and is not canceled, etc etc etc.), and I have no difficulty putting it all here , if necessary. The Corinthians team is already notorious and widely known in Brazil as "the robbery team". Your luck is that I'm not eager to do so. Now that I've put in reliable source article about the notorious manipulation of the choice of the stadium in São Paulo , I no longer argue with you , which is a partial supporter of Corinthians . I'm used to dealing with people who come to Wikipedia feeling that here is a place to advertise their fanatical ideology. If you keep complaining , I will put more and more referenced text here, about subjects that you are trying to hide from readers . The stadium is being funded with public money unlawfully and mafia connections that led to it , I just documenting this article . My "accusations" are not accusations, they are proven , documented and referenced facts . Try removing anything, and I call the administrators to block and ban you . Be well . Rauzaruku (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, the text do not agree with the sources linked and the editor apparently has strong feelings about the subject. About the incident, although there may be wrongdoing or not, I would refrain until a definitive conclusion is reached by the authorities. I am reverting it to the GA version until it can be cleared up.Legionarius (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean my sources or Rauzaruku's?
130.88.164.18 (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the "Controversy" part of the article edited by Rauzaruku's. As I reverted it to the WP:GA version, I did not evaluate your (IP 130) edits.Legionarius (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have the function to root for a team, do articles on advertising format, be your blog, and does not allow indiscriminate removal of data with reliable references. Keep trying to hide data, this will only lead you to a block. This article has been elected to GA by total ignorance of the subject on the part of members of Wiki-en who are not Brazilian. I'll probably ask for a Community reassessment request to lower the GA status, for two basic reasons: severe lack of relevant information to the article, and the fact that this article have no chance of being stable, since, if somebody add "controversial" data (some truth that some people don't want to see in the article) here, that the team's fans run here desperate to erase everything. You better stop lying about the source, and I do not invention texts. In the report, there are documented facts and personal statements of those involved. If you don't show interest in documenting the relevant facts to the articles, then you are a partial editor, and this article is not afford to be GA. And, in fact, you've been acting like a "single-purpose account" for a long time here. 5 years out of Wikipedia and you returned into account single-purpose format - an entire semester just editing this article. Impressively partial. Rauzaruku (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My dear friend, have you even read my editions? Everything that is relevant to the article itself is there (political manoeuvre, use of public resources, even technical issues raised after the accident). What is clearly not relevant is you translate (and in horrible English, if you'll excuse me) an article in its entirety and put on Wikipedia, also taking into account the fact that it primarily focuses on Andrés Sanchez's connections and life (even the name of the series of reports allude to that: Cartolas do Jogo Sujo), with the only mentions to the stadium being information on the exclusion of Morumbi and the resources used in Arena Corinthians' construction. The article should contain both positive and negative aspects of the stadium, naturally. Why should we hide those facts, facts that are everywhere (hence the number of sources I gathered for my editions)? But there is no point in doing that by adding a bunch of information that has no direct relation to the article's object of study. It's almost laughable that you're asking for missing information on the Russian Mafia's involvement in the stadium, weren't this so regrettable, because, in fact, there are no sources you can find for that (and even if you did, it'd be unreliable, because this whole idea is a complete nonsense factoid). Once again, your reference is perfect to be used on Andrés' biography (after all, your source's main focus is him!). As I said, if you want to add details of his night life or the "famous" quotes, feel free to do it. But not in this article, since it only adds junk to the text body.
If you haven't by now, I beg to you to read the editions I made, you'll see everything related to those (relevant) controversies is there, plus more information on other controversial topics. "Wow, that's really unexpected! Why the hell would a Corinthians supporter do that?! He must be really stupid!" Well, actually, I'm writing what's fair to be in the article, make it good or bad to my club's image. Why? Because that is what everyone should seek, providing a fair article to let other people know about the topic, in every aspect. I do apologize for the edit war I caused, I should have stepped up from the beginning. Even if the content is of bad quality, it's no good removing it. After several years absent from Wikipedia, I remembered: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can!" At least, that's what I think I did.
The way I see now, it's you who's being biased here, and I don't even know why you're getting so worked up for that. You threatened me because you clearly hold the absolute truth, you looked up in my contribution history to check where else I've edited, went bothering the user who actually reported me for being involved in an edit war and later reconsidered (I've made an addition to the article at last, I wasn't simply undoing yours), blabbing nothing but a passionate tirade from what seems to be a really rage-blinded anti (sorry, but you'll have to deal with this burden from now on), fancying yourself with the whole plethora of Wikipedia terms to advocate your reasons. Well, my friend, it seems in the end, it's only you who's being irrational here, deleting other people's comments (like my fellow corintiano friend above; he wasn't the least disrespectful to you, but look how you've treated him later), protecting yourself behind things like COI (looks like it's you who got that), disruptive editing and block policy and clearly being irreducible in trying to solve this by discussing it.
130.88.164.18 (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rauzaruku, this source you are using has a bias against Andres Sanchez due to a commercial dispute. Please see the following links for more information: [1] [2]. I believe it cannot be used in this article.Legionarius (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Record searched for problems of Corinthians president life, and see what a cool thing: they founded! So what? It is normal to be a TV rival and try to win commercial disputes, it doesn't change the fact that the Corinthians president is a criminal. Search for information does not mean invent information. This is your confusion here: you are deleting documented information, and worse than it, statements given by people. Complementing, if you see the way Brazil is, probably all these issues would be comfortably buried somewhere, if there weren't someone to pursue the truth. Record need to be congratulated for not selling itself, and have sought the truth and published it.Rauzaruku (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another big partiality of yours, is that you are putting little data about the accident at the stadium, which was an event with a world range. You don'tt want to see appearing too much data here about this accident? Your editorial bias is evident, trying to keep this article "pure" without "bad" data. Rauzaruku (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added another reliable, recognized and reputable sources of Brazil: the ISTOÉ magazine, the CartaCapital magazine, and ESPN Brasil. The whole Brazilian media knows about the problems linked to the Corinthians Arena Sanchez, Teixeira, Lula, Globo and CBF, i'ts no use try to hide it from the article, claiming that "the sources would be suspicious."Rauzaruku (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from editing the article until the RfC is complete. [3]Legionarius (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were warned about vandalism into your talk page. Now I'm requesting your block. Rauzaruku (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many issues with the edits that I do not know where to start. Waiting for the RFC.Legionarius (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I'm seeing is single-purpose accounts trying to prevent others from editing and inserting data that not interest them, resuming, "exclusive possession of an article" and WP:COI conflict. Rauzaruku (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is out of line. Articles linked were:
  • A piece from a disgusted competitor from Rede Globo, mentioned on the RFC. [4]
  • An article about Ricardo Teixeira, saying that he takes bribes. Not related to the stadium.[5]
  • An article about Andres Sanchez business dealings. [6]
  • Something else about Sanchez by Record. Not sure how it relates to the article. [7]
  • An interview by a CBF political adversary[8] and another by a political adversary on his club, both about Sanchez[9].

If your point is about political maneuvering to "leave Morumbi out of the World Cup", you can get way better sources than those. I did not include them in the article because:

  • FIFA never agreed to include Morumbi. It was the local committee's idea.
  • There are multiple opinion pieces stating this and that, but no hard facts to corroborate it, only opinion pieces. The only fact is that there was an approved version of the renovations plan, but Morumbi's owners did not want to go with it. There were othere opinion pieces saying that Morumbi's people were trying to stall the choice the most they could to get it for free later; this is also hearsay and opinions, not facts, so they did not make it to the article either.
  • Those issues may seem important at the time, but this is an article about the stadium, not about the history of the stadium or a controversy about the stadium. It is just a quick overview. You may do better creating an article just for that. I had a hard time separating the facts from opinions when I wrote the article.

There are plenty of people trying to sue the city of São Paulo, the club, the federal government and so on. So far, all the processes have been dismissed. I do not think those should be put on the article, as anybody can sue anybody, but the merit is not a given, must go through the judges.

About the accident, there is plenty of information there about it, but causes have not been established yet; speculation is rife with this kind of accident everywhere, not only here. I would refrain to post a cause until the final results from investigations come back.

Finally, your behavior has been very disruptive. Since we did not get consensus on the changes - a fact that also stems from the fact that not many editors are in this article - I am reverting it to the GA version until consensus can be reached. A RFC is already open for this.

On your SPA accusations, I do not have much time available, and try to go deep on my articles. You can check my history for it.

Finally, the tags your slapped on the article:

  • This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (December 2013)
  • This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (December 2013)

Not sure why you say that. Care to explain?


  • This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. (December 2013)

I think now it is unbalanced, before it was balanced.

  • This article is missing information about Russian mafia, mafia involvement between the Brazilian government, CBF and Globo which enabled the construction of this stadium with public money irregularly. (December 2013)

As before, there are a lot of warriors on both camps, but no hard facts. The article in its GA version is based on facts. This sounds more like a conspiracy theory than anything else. I understand that you have strong feelings about the club from the fact it is a sports rival of your favorite team, but it should not come to this article. You may want to edit articles about the club, Andres Sanchez or Ricardo Teixeira and discuss those changes there.

Based on that, I am reverting it to the GA version until consensus is reached. Legionarius (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All information is necessary to undestand how and why this Stadium was constructed. Based on this, your editions are pure vandalism to try to hide relevant information about the stadium history. You don't agree with nothing, you are full erasing everything, so, your editions are vandalism and aren't a try to consensus nothing. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree with your reasoning so far. Please wait for consensus to be reached on the RFC before editing the article again on this particular subject.Legionarius (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Record is a "DISGUSTING" competitor? Look at this great partiality. All information show the inter-connectinons between the people who was responsible for the Stadium existence. Rauzaruku (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "quick overview", these are all facts relevant to the stadium existance, creation, World Cup chosen and stuff. You are dying in angry because I've putted it here, and want to retire, just it. Rauzaruku (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There are plenty of people trying to sue the city of São Paulo, the club, the federal government and so on. So far, all the processes have been dismissed". Do you think it's normal a ton of people sue the city, the government and the club? This is a proof that something is very wrong, and this fact is relevant. If we have a mafia behind this actions, we need to consider that is normal they block the sues. This type of thing happens a lot in Africa, Italy and another countries with weak Justice, dictatorships, etc.Rauzaruku (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disengaging for now, waiting for outside opinion.Legionarius (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 days without editing or responding my consensus propose. Now I need to assume that you're a vandal that just want to possess this article, and reverting all editions that don't interest to you. Rauzaruku (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Arena Corinthians/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Hi, I will be doing the review for this article.Nothing much to say but there are some drawbacks[reply]

  • Please provide reference for "The stadium will have wi-fi in all its sectors. Using smartphones, the public will be able to access game stats and watch replays published on a page maintained by the stadium crew."Otherwise it is looking like original research
  • Some grammatical errors like " The west and east sides there are joined" which should be The west and east sides are joined...

Hope you improve.RRD13 (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RDD13, thanks for dedicating your time to review this article. The phrase you mentioned was referenced on *114*, right below it. I moved the reference up and duplicated the reference on the following phrase. I also changed the wrong phrase as remarked. Thanks!Legionarius (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Royroydeb you may want to review these recent talk and DRN threads when determining the articles stability. talk page and [10] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believed that due to the outcome of this incident the article should be stable again.Legionarius (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Test Match Date[edit]

Hello everyone, I found a source [[11]] that says the test match for this stadium is being held on May 17 -- should we add this information into the article? If you think so let me know, and I can do that. Adamh4 (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. Sorry, just saw your message now. Those events are changing back and forth all the time, I just added the most recent data to the article. Btw, be bold and add whatever you find useful :); I am the most active editor as it looks like not many people are interested in this subject, but I am by no means the owner.Legionarius (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for the help! I'll keep that in mind :) Adamh4 (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Build date[edit]

I put a "not in source" for the build date, but it was removed because the title contains "delivered", but the title of the article is "Unfinished and 'open to all', Arena is delivered by the builder Timon" Christian75 (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Doesnt sound like finished (from 2 May 2014), [12] Christian75 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the template's documentation, built should be a "date range of when the venue was under construction", not a single date.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point. The project is confusing on this (or every) aspect. First, the construction company hired says that they did all they were hired to do and the other parts are not their responsibility. Makes (some) sense. The roof is obviously not finished and some internal areas are not finished... temporary seating is underway... On top of that, the configuration used by the club is very different from the configuration that is going to be used during the World Cup, with totally different structures behind the goals and significant changes on the internal areas. In theory, it will be finished only when all this is done, February 2015 (or later). I thought using the "official" date was the "lesser evil" option. What do you think?

Legionarius (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improve refs please[edit]

A great many of the references are in Portuguese and the titles of them are presented in Portuguese as well. They should be translated using the trans_title= parameter as discussed at template:cite web. If I do it, you'll end-up with clunky, machine translated titles rather than natural ones. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point, and this is only one of the problems with the refs, many incomplete. I would expect most of the refs to be replaced once everything is in place, contracts signed, et cetera.... that is why I did not care much for making full refs. I will start working on the historical refs, since they will not change.Legionarius (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Translations done.Legionarius (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it happening over the day. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the translations, but I know they're better than anything I could do. Thank you! Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sao Paulo stadium seating capacity[edit]

I am taking the liberty to copy Thenoflyzone comment here to continue the content-based discussion.Legionarius (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You claim 66,200 with your portuguese (non-official) source, and yet not a single game so far exceeded 62,601. FIFA.com is the source to be used, as that is the official source, and is also the actual seating capacity. Period. Uruguay vs England proved it.

Thenoflyzone (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi No-fly-zone, It is non-official but very respected, the main media outlet in Brazil. Keep in mind many tickets are given as courtesy but holders do not show up. FIFA gave several different capacity measurements before and during the tournament. In this case, I just believe they did not update the site as they are busy doing other things. Example: On the ticketing brochure, they said the capacity was 67,349, lowering to 59,955 "usable". The claimed 4,000 increase in capacity came from dismounting press desks and VIP seating that took up to three times the space a regular seat takes.Legionarius (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arena Corinthians. 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.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Arena Corinthians. 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.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

If this article is going to reflect the sponsored name, it should be at Neo Química Arena. Hack (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, they use the accent on their website written in Portuguese, [13]. It's also titled that way on their social media accounts as well (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Returning these two pages whence it was named by User:Raphael Figueira should solve this problem. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not really a moot point? Shouldn't the article still be at Arena Corinthians as we don't use sponsored names where a stadium has a non-sponsored name? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's just one of a few non-sponsored names. Itaquerão is pretty common, as well as Estádio do Corinthians em Itaquera. Hack (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a move to whichever is the most commonly used or most recognisable non-sponsored name Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 December 2021[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to "Arena Corinthians" (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Neo Quimica Arena → Neo Química Arena – Naming rights of the stadium was sold out for 20 years in September 2020, and the company's name is Neo Química (with the diacritic), so name is currently incorrect. BRDude70 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to Arena Corinthians Wikipedia is not for advertising, and so we don't need the sponsor name. If consensus is to keep the sponsor name in the article title, then the move with accent is better than the current location. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 19:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to Arena Corinthians as we do not use sponsored names for football stadiums when there is a non-sponsored alternative. GiantSnowman 19:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move as "Quimica" is spelled incorrectly per nom and links I presented in the immediate section above but this source indicates this is the "new naming-rights sponsor" so returning it to "Arena Corinthians" as a recognisable non-sponsored name is an equally good point to consider. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Arena Corinthians: Fully agree with Joseph and GS. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment[edit]

Arena Corinthians[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is out of date in quite a few places (f.i. "The stadium will have wi-fi and 4G LTE in all its sectors", with 2013 source). Will need a lick of paint to meet GA criteria again. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 December 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Corinthians → Neo Química Arena – New name since 2020. Already changed in Portuguese. 177.9.115.99 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There was a previous discussion about this in 2021, so the article cannot be uncontroversially moved. 162 etc. (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this move was essentially reverted in a discussion in 2021 (as stated above), is there any evidence for a new commonname since per WP:NAMECHANGES? The argument seems just WP:OFFICIALNAMES, therefore not a policy based argument. DankJae 02:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 22:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - we do not use sponsored names for soccer stadiums. GiantSnowman 22:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It's now a multi-purpose stadium. 177.9.115.99 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The principle remains. We should not have any sponsored names. GiantSnowman 13:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sponsored names are perfectly acceptable. The policy is WP:COMMONNAME: "(Wikipedia) prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources.)" Nobody involved in this discussion so far has cited any sources. 162 etc. (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NOTADVERT and WP:OFFICIALNAME. GiantSnowman 10:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @GiantSnowman, Nothing is in those policies that is explicitly against sponsored names entirely. However adding a newly created sponsored name just because it is the “new name” or “official name” is along the lines of OFFICIALNAMES and is against COMMONNAME and needs to follow NAMECHANGES with evidence. But per the latter, if independent secondary English sources use the Sponsored name more commonly then it is treated as a new commonname. NOTADVERT is specifically on articles and their notability themselves. DankJae 17:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no evidence that the COMMONNAME has changed since the previous discussion in 2021. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – It is the name most commonly referred to the stadium, in addition to appearing on the official website itself. Similar situation to Allianz Parque. (the real name of the stadium is Palestra Itália) Svartner (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. No evidence the sponsored name is the common name. O.N.R. (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • now Oppose move, since initial comment, no evidence has since been provided to meet WP:NAMECHANGES for a change of WP:COMMONNAME. Sounds WP:OFFICIALNAMES, arguing "because its official", therefore not based on policy. DankJae 18:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per longstanding consensus that we do not use sponsored names where there is a non-sponsored alternative. Number 57 11:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sponsored name is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arena_Corinthians&oldid=1220139605"