Talk:WACA Ground

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Baseball Portal WACA Ground is within the scope of 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.
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.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Portal	WACA Ground is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Perth.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Cricket Portal Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability WACA Ground is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Categories and templates: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

[edit] Future under threat?

I've just heard Jonathan Agnew on TMS referring to the fact that the WACA's future as a Test venue is far from guaranteed. Unfortunately I didn't catch the details, but I'd have thought something on this ought to be added by someone who does know. Loganberry (Talk) 04:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I was listening to the same discussion. The discussion relates to a current public debate going on about the future of major sports venues in Perth which has been bubbling away for some years. The State Government is under significant pressure to build a new 60,000+ stadium somewhere in the city, however its apparently only commercially viable if they can combine Subiaco Oval and the WACA into a new stadium. There is some discussion on the debate at the Subiaco article.

This week, Burswood Resort (owned by Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL) announced an idea for the Government to buy off it, a parcel of prime land across the river and adjacent to the Burswood Casino for the construction of 2 sporting venues (1 rectangular and 1 oval) as well as a new entertainment complex. There was no mention of how much James Packer wants for the land but it won't be cheap I'm sure.

Where this all ends up is anyone's guess, but as so much of it is speculation its hard to see how to weave this into the article as it seems a new press item comes out every few days which suggests a new option. Meanwhile the Government is painting itself into a corner as public expectations seem to be increasing and the options available to it are becoming more expensive. A government task force charged with making a recommendation has now made several recommendations which have been ignored. Its a PR disaster for the government. —Moondyne 04:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split Needed

This really needs to be split into two separate articles, one for the WACA and one for the WACA ground. Bongomanrae (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)