Talk:Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


This article is part of WikiProject Southern California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Southern California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.

Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Location

The Coliseum is located in South Los Angeles, not Downtown. Please stop lying.--Truthiness 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And your proof is? --Bobak 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
He's right. USC is in South Central so it would track that the stadium which is south of USC would also be in South Central. Gateman1997 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
With respect, I'm going to dispute that as a clear definition because there are sources that place the University Park neighborhood (USC and Expo Park) in the southern reaches of what is considered the downtown neighborhood (including the Los Angeles Downtown News). Of course, I don't want to create a revert issue over it, so I've tried to created a balance of both views in my recent edit. Historically, Expo Park (then Agricultural Park) was south of the 20,000 person city of LA when USC was founded next door in 1880. However, over the ensuing years the spread of downtown has reached south (downtown in 1880 was actually centered around what is now Olvera Street on the far north of what is considered "downtown"). Now, I'm also not saying that this issue on whether USC/Expo Park is in downtown hasn't been strongly advocated by USC, but thus far the evidence has been in its favor (here's a very recent article on point). With the growth of downtown towards the South Park neighorhood (LACC/Staples and further down) the definition that simply used a freeway to be the dividing line is up for challenge. --Bobak 18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It is absurd and historically inaccurate to claim that Exposition Park is located Downtown, even though you know perfectly well that it is located more than a mile south of the 10 Freeway. Should we also claim that Wrigley Field was located downtown too? It is disrespectful to natives and residents of South Los Angeles to claim that one of their neighborhood's jewels isn't in their part of town. It is akin to reporters on "Entertainment Tonight" claiming that the Shrine Auditorium is in "Hollywood." You should likewise be ashamed of your rhetoric.--Truthiness 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"Rhetoric"? I'm not trying to insult anyone, and I'm not trying to upset anyone: this is not my personal attempt to redefine downtown. There is a trend growing, as noted in Wikipedia's own University Park, Los Angeles, California article (which I have not previously edited), that has USC/Expo Park reorienting itself to downtown Los Angeles which is growing southwards --like many LA neighborhood articles, its underwritten because it misses the BID: There is a development area that's been created around this very connection, the Figueroa Cooridor Partnership (I will add this to the University Park article). Eight years ago I personally attended a Central City Association meeting where the trend was acknowledged. Even on the maps of LA Council districts the University Park neighborhood is split between the 1st and 8th. --Bobak 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've put in a separate section ("Location") which correctly identifies that the neighborhood is University Park. If anyone wants to read more about the district dispute, they can easily access the "University Park, Los Angeles, California" article from this section. I've made the same change in the USC article ("downtown" --> "University Park"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truthiness (talkcontribs) 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
There was a long article in the LA Times within the last month or so about this trend. But still, historically the area has always been in South Central. BlankVerse 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How's this as what I think will be a mutually acceptable solution: Can we simply make the description as located in University Park, Los Angeles, California? That will leave any issues over actual location for the neighborhood article, not the Coliseum where I think we can agree it really shouldn't be a focus. --Bobak 20:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually inserted the above suggestion before I realized Truthiness had added the location section, so I've reverted myself to propose it here. --Bobak 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I also didn't realize that Truthiness had made the smart change to USC's article that I am re-suggesting for this article (he did it the second before I cross-checked that article for ideas). So, yeah... Can we run with that here? :-) --Bobak 20:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. I wrote the separate "Location" section into the Coliseum entry before realizing that there was an entry for University Park that says pretty much the same thing. If it's OK with you, I'll go ahead and fix it. In regards to an article you linked earlier, I don't consider the Los Angeles Downtown News to be an objective source.--Truthiness 21:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The new edit looks fine. While I agree that the LA Downtown news has a clear pro-business slant like most similar downtown papers (ex: the Downtown Journal in Minneapolis is similar), I don't see a clear bias in areas like this. --Bobak 16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture?

Does anyone know what style of architecture the Coliseum is in?

  • Big slab of concrete?Gateman1997 16:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd call it the "Oval" school of architecture. Actually, aside from the (neo-classic?) peristyle, it looks about the same as any big stadium of its era only "more so". I always thought it looked like it belonged in Los Angeles, so maybe the "Angelino" school? Wahkeenah 18:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the best editing jobs that anyone has ever done on any of my work. Rlquall

Incorrect info is listed under Tenants, UCLA does not play their home games there, at least for football.

NEED A PICTURE OF THE COLISEUM, HOW CAN WE DO THAT??

[edit] Photo(s) requested

NEED A PICTURE OF THE COLISEUM, HOW CAN WE DO THAT??

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in California may be able to help!

This article is mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Requested photos. --3bulletproof16 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1972 Superbowl of Motocross

I added the 1972 Superbowl of Motocross which has evolved into the stadium Supercross events held in major league stadiums across the United States and Canada. Someone deleted it. I don't understand how someone can take it upon themselves to delete an actual event. Since 1972, stadium supercross has become one of the most attended events in motor racing. Is there a reason why only major ball and stick sports are to be mentioned in this article?Orsoni 06:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it is a noteworthy event and should be in the article. The paragraph was deleted by 3bulletproof16 (talk contribs) (without any explanation in the edit summary, and also marked as a minor edit). Since you've brought up the issue on this article's talk page, hopefully 3bulletproof16 will also join the discussion and explain the deletion. BlankVerse 14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Supercross is noteworthy and did belong there. The guidelines to Wikipedia say to make bold edits. But, one of the points of Wikipedia:Etiquette which 3bulletproof16 (a many article contributor) ignored is: Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. Doing that with no explanation is a Bad thing. Orsoni, please re-add and keep an eye out. I might point out that there have been some noteworthy concerts like the Rolling Stones and the Who at the Coliseum. Group29 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The way it was written seemed notable to me. --Bobak 16:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that any of the Coliseum concerts can be considered noteworthy, unless they recorded most or all of a live album at the Coliseum. Individual concerts shouldn't be listed, but you could list some of the artists who have performed concerts at the coliseum. The problem with lists like that, however, is that they tend to just keep growing. Then people start adding opening acts, ad infinitum. BlankVerse 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)