Talk:Staples Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Staples Center article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] All Caps?

Just because the official title is in all caps, doesn't nessecarily mean that it has to be all caps here on wikipedia. For example, the Miami Heat are offically the Miami "HEAT" on thier websites, but the name is rendered "Heat" when it is referenced in stories. Than same is true with the Staples Center. Maybe we should use the correct media style guide, not the "official" guideline. Dknights411 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that since most media articles I've seen all spell out STAPLES Center as Staples Center.3bulletproof16 23:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestling

Wrestling is an important billion dollar industry with a long history and worldwide interest and notability. Add to that the wrestling gave this venue its biggest attendance ever for an event, these references should be here (hint; those wrestling wikilinks go somewhere). Hypnosadist 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro wrestling is about as notable to the history of sporting venues as tractor pulls. Only by the insistence of a small motley crew of rasslin' buffs does it even merit mention in a general-interest encyclopedia, and it certainly doesn't need to creep its way into other articles that have all but nothing to do with the pseudo-sport. I Always Win 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The notability of wrestling comes from the tickets to shows it sells at places like the staples center and the TV revinue generated and the coverage in the media. You obviously do not like wrestling, thats all well and good, but it is a notable part of world culture. Hypnosadist 23:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
See my user page for my last word on the pseudo-sport. If professional wrestling has become a "notable part of world culture", Armageddon can not come soon enough. I Always Win 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet opinions don't mean much on Wikipedia. Oh, the fact that WrestleMania 23 had more than 80,000 people and that WWE RAW (which has been on TV every week for the last 14 years) continues to get millions of viewers every week make it pretty notable. TJ Spyke 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WCW?

In the WCW Title history at wwe.com it says that the WCW title changed hands in Los Angeles, has WCW ever have a ppv or a Nitro at STAPLES Center? It just seems weird that the place where I went 3 times to watch WWE has ever had WCW there(YouWantSomeComeGetSome 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Come on someone, please answer my question!!(YouWantSomeComeGetSome 21:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Article needs a lot of work

This article reads like a press release for the arena in some sections and certainly has some problems with POV and is entirely unreferenced. Hope someone can work on this and bring it up to Wikipedia standards. - Gmatsuda 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the Articleissues template from the article. There are several problems with this article. When those problems are resolved THEN remove it. -- Gmatsuda 02:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree with the removal of the Articleissues template and the addition of more wrestling events to the list by 3bulletproof16. The fact is, it already lists way too many concerts and other events. If you want a detailed list of events that have taken place at Staples Center, please create a separate article/list for them.
As for the other problems with this article, they are still there. First of all, there are nowhere near enough verifiable sources and inline citations; virtually all the citations are from AEG, not from another independent source. Second, without enough verifiable sources, the article is suspect because it appears that much of it is based on original research. Finally, the article still reads like an advertising/PR piece for the arena and also needs to be reviewed for possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on requiring a neutral point of view. Also, I strongly suspect that editors who are connected to Staples Center and/or AEG have written much of this article, which violates Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest.
Finally, I have been threatened to not edit this article further. Really have to question what's going on with this article. Jeez. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It is no threat. Read WP:3RR. Wikipedia prefers avoiding Edit wars as they lead to the disruption of articles and can result in those involved being Blocked. The citations come from a variety of sites, from AEG to the independent Los Angeles Sports Commission, and the architectural firms involved with the project. I am currently in the process of adding more sources including 3rd Party (which are preferred by Wikipedia policy). The article is not and has not been written by anyone involved with the AEG either. Lists are frowned upon by Wikipedia's Manual of Style policy per WP:EMBED. If you still feel the article violates WP:NPOV I would recommend requesting a WP:RfC.-- bulletproof 3:16 07:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it read like one until you changed "edit" to "revert" on my talk page. :-) Anyway, I'm not interested in an edit war. In fact, I had no idea you were working on the article...it appeared that you just added more wrestling events (I still feel we've already gone overboard on listing examples of events) and arbitrarily removed the Articleissues template. I look forward to your improvements. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
About the references...four of the six are from AEG sources. That's why I said that more independent sources are needed. Not that the AEG sources are suspect, but it would give the article more credibility if more independent sources are used. And what evidence do you have that no one involved with AEG has contributed to this article? I'm not trying to cause trouble...it's just that in its present form, the article reads like a publicity piece for the arena. That brings up suspicions about who has had a hand in writing it. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
My doubt that AEG has contributed to the article in any form is in part confirmed by the fact that the IPs I've checked have been traced to locations outside of California (AEG is a Los Angeles based company) and in part by the fact that Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (Hope you understand that one). It would certainly help if you specifically pointed out which parts of the article you feel are inappropriate for encyclopedic content.-- bulletproof 3:16 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I probably won't be able to get back to this for a few days...FYI... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm only sort of "back." But a couple of things...keep in mind that AEG is a worldwide company with people working for them all over the place. And based on the way they do business, it would not surprise me if they had employees outside of LA area contributing to this article to reduce the chance of being "caught." Call me a conspiracy theorist, sure. But I've had a lot of experience in watching AEG as a freelance writer covering the LA Kings, so, as I said, it wouldn't surprise me. They do whatever they want if it's in their best interests and if no one is watching.
As for specifics on what reads like a press release or like a publicity piece for Staples Center, it hits you in the face right away. The first thing the History section says is that it won the Pollstar award. First thing. I'm not questioning whether or not they won this award. Rather, I'm saying that this is probably not appropriate at this point in the article, especially when the lead needs to be re-written and expanded. In fact, the lead should probably include much of what is in the History section. That being the case, mention of the award certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Mention of this award should appear later in the article.
The events listed in the History section should probably be pruned a bit. The Pac 10 hoops tournament is mentioned twice. We can delete one of the wrestling events as well, without taking away from the article.
In the Future developments section: It starts with, "Although Staples Center is already a Los Angeles landmark..." While that is probably true, who determined that? There is no factual basis provided. There should be a couple of citations for this statement, or it's nothing more than POV and adds to the "publicity piece" feel, IMHO. Also, this section goes into more detail about LA Live than needs to be there, another thing that makes it read like a promo for AEG. All it needs to mention is the hotel/residential building, the Nokia Theater and ESPN broadcast facility/studios, and "...other retail, entertainment and dining amenities," or something to that effect. It doesn't have to get more specific than that. LA Live can have its own article, after all.
The notes section also reads like a promotion for the arena. What purpose does the load-in information serve in the article? I'm sure it's factual, but is it encyclopedic? Hardly. Same goes for the color of the seats and mention of the scoreboard. Mention of the television capabilties is notable, but I think the number of camera positions is probably too specific to be encyclopedic. Further, the notes section should be eliminated and the items listed, if important, should be worked into the prose.
Those are my thoughts for now...I may come up with more later. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

About the history section...there is one mention of most kinds of events held at Staples Center, with the exception of the wrestling events, of which there are six. That's a POV/balance problem to me. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There would be an exception to those events because they are indeed notable by the fact that they are responsible for setting many of the arena’s current record figures. You also have to understand that these types of events aren't similar to those such as concerts, or road shows that occur every week or so. They are events much like the NCAA finals, or the Latin Grammy Awards that occur yearly and are differentiated by that fact. The issue here is that an editor currently being questioned by admins has been going around articles and removing all notes relating to professional wrestling from them. That was what my edit summary was referring to. -- bulletproof 3:16 00:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My comment actually wasn't really a reaction to that editor. What he did just prompted me to think about that. :-) But when the article gets a big face-lift, I think the history needs to be cleaned up and perhaps it can be re-written so that the wrestling events do not dominate. After all, the primary focus really should be on their primary tenants. Lesser weight should be given to the other events, regardless of their notablity, IMHO. Even the 2001 NHL All-Star Game and the Democratic Convention years ago are more notable (the 2001 NHL All-Star Game because its related to one of the primary tenants). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
One other thing about attendance figures...keep in mind that the configurations for different events prevent hockey and basketball from setting an attendance record as high as a concert, boxing, wrestling, etc. that doesn't require as much floor space...they can put in a lot more seats for such events, so IMHO, that reduces (not eliminates) the notability of the wresting events in terms of setting attendance records. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but after reading it I'm inclined to agree with Gmatsuda's concerns noted above. Sounds too much like a promo piece; too many AEG references; and the pro wrestling references should be pared down a bit. In terms of the latter, may I suggest the following: Staples Center has also hosted many World Wrestling Entertainment events, including the attendance record-setting Wrestlemania 21 in 2005.[4] Simple and to the point. --Alika (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attendance Record

I'm wondering if the Staples Center attendance record is 20,262 instead of 20,193 because on Februry 23, 2008 when the Lakers played the Clippers the attendance was 20,262, and the article says it's 20,193 from Wrestlemania 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.61.163 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for the new record, then yes, please correct it and be sure to provide an inline citation. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I thought I'd just mention here that I have removed parts of the text in the section "The arena" as it was written like an advertisement. I do also have concerns that part of the "Future developments" section may violate WP:NPOV but I have left the section untouched so that if necessary, it can be discussed. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this a step further. The article is still missing citations for various "facts," it contains statements that, without citations, appear to be based on original research, and since much of it sounds like a press release for the arena, I suspect that it may have been edited by someone with a conflict of interest. These are all tags that I've added to this article before, I know, but nothing has been done to this article, IMHO, to warrant their removal. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoops...actually, the citation problem is that all of them are from AEG, the owner of the arena. There are no citations from independent sources, even though it is a virtually certainty that they are available. I'll remove the citations missing tag, but this is a concern. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)