Talk:Stadium:mk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Buckinghamshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject on Football
English football Portal
The article on Stadium:mk is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the England task force.

Contents

[edit] Infobox to be added

As and when the info becomes available, please update this infobox. When it is ready, we can move into the article.

I've taken the infobox out as it seems that a suitable one has already been added to the article. Zorro77 19:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name - and proposal to move this article

Does anybody know if the Stadium consortium are going to persist with the daft "Stadium MK" name? (choose between colon, hyphen, non-breaking space or nothing between the words). The centre:mk name has been a pathetic failure, imo. Any bets on Marshall Stadium? --Concrete Cowboy 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest way of writing it is stadiummk - but there is no official name yet and this seems to still be a working name. Mk3severo 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though stadium:mk has been decided on as the permanent name for the stadium. It is included in all the new tickets, the programme for the WHU game and as part of the address (Stadium Way). I propose that the article is renamed "stadium:mk" and the article is edited accordingly, and that an article named "Denbigh Stadium" redirects to it. Thoughts? --Zorro77 13:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See Stadium of Light and Emirates Stadium for precedent. Move. --Concrete Cowboy 22:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've moved it. --Concrete Cowboy 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stadium:mk or stadium:mk (or even Stadium:MK)

Should the s of stadium be a small one or large one? I'm getting confused as it's written several different ways on the MK Dons website... SeveroTC 15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Small S seems to be preferred version (as per the centre:mk), but sentences still have to start with a capital letter. Just because the overpaid brand management company comes up with something they imagine is "kewl" is not a good reason for us to use it obsessively and illiterately. --Concrete Cowboy 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been fixing the redirects from Denbigh Stadium. Mostly I've used capital S and where I haven't, I wish I had. In English, proper nouns have capital letters. In my view, we shouldn't be seduced by the branding, we should use Stadium:mk in all references. What does anybody else think? --Concrete Cowboy 17:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what we think: easyJet, occam (programming language), dinnerladies, lovehatetragedy and iTunes are all examples where the branding has been to start the proper noun with a lowercase letter. (For a full list see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Lowercase.) However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) indicates that a capital letter should be used (as it currently is). The uniqueness of the :mk section of the name is not covered so is a judgement call I feel. SeveroTC 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, that settles it. All textual use in wikipedia is Stadium:mk, but the infobox can use "stadium:mk" in the title. --Concrete Cowboy 12:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Construction info

It would be good to include a para on the construction (timetable, budget, etc) - and it would provide a good hook to hang that nice helicopter view of the roof under construction. Or we could just add a gallery? --Concrete Cowboy 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that sort of info can just be added to the first section for the time being. Perhaps have a seperate 'construction' section when the stadium is completed. I like the idea of a gallery for additional pics though, perhaps before the 'References' section. It would tidy the article up. --Zorro77 13:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The edit that put thumbnails down the left seems to have improved the layout so looks fine to me now. As you say, as more details emerge about the construction, they can be added until there is enough info to make a separate section. --Concrete Cowboy 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capacity confusion

I am still confused about the capacity. Is the "upper tier" the second tier that is already in place? A few weeks ago it had no seats, and I thought that perhaps they weren't going to install them yet. But the lower tier doesn't look like it seats 22,000 and the latest pictures show seats on the upper tier. Also recents items on the club's site refer to a 30,000 capacity as if that is what it will be at the start of next season. AshbyJnr 23:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The current configuration seats 22,000. There is space for another 8,000 seats to be added "up in the gods". --Concrete Cowboy 22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moocamp...

I seriously doubt that the majority of the Wikipedia community would class that as appropriate for an encyclopediac article such as this one. I suggest it is changed or replaced with a more suitable nickname actually used by some of the fans at MK. Jazza5 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's arguable. As far as I could tell, "Moocamp" was invented by MK News and has never been taken up by the much larger circulation MK Gazette. But there is a fan site called moocamp.com, so it has some foundation. Do a google search - not a lot of sites but more than a few. But I think think there needs to be more evidence of general acceptance for it to feature as fact - most people would regard it as just too silly. --John Maynard Friedman 17:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation : Image:Denbigh_stadium_aerial_july_06.jpeg

Please note that the copyright of the above image is not owned by "mkdonsrus.com" and therefore the permission they have given is invalid. The image was taken by my father as part of a photographic shoot for Buckingham Construction, but the copyright of the photo was not transferred and remains with my father.

I am loathed to remove the photograph at this stage until I hear further comment from those with an interest in this page, and am not an expert in how copyright of images is treated within wikipedia, but I would suggest the alternatives are a) remove the image, or b) modify the details attached to the photograph within commons and assign credit to my father (not sure if he is happy for this to happen at the moment, but will ask if this is the preferred option among editors).

Your views? ColourSarge (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The image has to be removed immediately, since the declaration that it was freely donated without any reservations whatever has proved to be false. This is a real pity but I can see why your father would not wish to give away his rights. The only compromise I can think of is that he might consider putting a 300 pixel image into the public domain and retaining his rights to the hi-res version (he could put a note to that effect on the image record. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi JMF, I've had a message from the user who initially uploaded the pic as well along similar lines and I'll be speaking to my father about doing just that. If it would be useful and by way of a show of good faith I will also ask if there are any other images he would be willing to release, as he documented construction from greenfield to complete (well as far as complete currently goes!) ColourSarge (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)