Template talk:Infobox venue/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tenants field

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.

---

If a team owns the stadium or venue, should the "Tenants" field be used or not? All teams are usually listed, however, one user on White Hart Lane page keeps removing them altogether citing that the team owns the stadium and it should not be used. Any opinions? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be used. Some clubs that own stadiums have not been the first to own or use it (e.g. Ashton Gate), so it's useful to show all current and previous users of the ground (including those that were owners) in the tenants section. It was really unhelpful to remove London Monarchs from the tenants section on the White Hart Lane article, regardless of views on the inclusion of Tottenham. Number 57 19:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be used, tenant, or temporary, in legal terms, it's incorrect to add that field of the club owns the land or stadium. Govvy (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

1 and 2. Govvy (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your reason for removal if based on dictionary, despite the documentation being clear. Furthermore, the Tottenham Hotspur F.C.'s page clearly says that the club is owned by a company. Therefore, the stadium is also owned by a company and not directly by the club, which just shows that you misunderstood it completely. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Erm, no, I base it on legal (law), to state tenancy within an ownership is illegal, do you work on the real estate sector? Do you even understand the concept of tenancy? Wikipedia has been using the field wrong for a long time, I tried to tell people before. Govvy (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Can you suggest a better word than "Tenant" to fit what the documentation intends for that parameter? - BilCat (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat:, If done correctly you’d have a field like Titled Owners, and use the Tenant field for clubs that don’t inherently own the deed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govvy (talk • contribs)

That's more complicated than we need to be in an infobox. The "tenants" parameter in the documentation states: "Insert the teams and any other parties who use the venue as their home stadium or arena." Can you suggest an alternate word or short phrase that encompasses that meaning? - BilCat (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

All clubs that own their stadium are Freeholders, not Tenants! It's a simple fact, Tottenham is the freeholder of their stadium, Man United is the Freeholder, you can't be a Tenant if you're the Freeholder! Govvy (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: The parameter is intended to list all current and former teams, regardless of whether or not a team is legally a Tenant or Freeholder, who "use the venue as their home stadium or arena." How would you label that entry in one or two words? - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat:, what should be done is another text field added to the template under Tenants called "Freeholders", so you can switch between both, notes should be on Freeholders (Use this field for sports clubs that own their stadiums) and notes for Tenants (Use this field if a Sports club has a lease). Govvy (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Or rename the Tenants field to Occupants! If you wanted to simplify it, but at current, it's poorly used. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that some clubs have not been the first owner or user of the ground still seems to be being overlooked and potentially useful information would be lost by omitting this. If we have to change "tenants" to "occupants" so that all users of the ground can be listed, then so be it. Number 57 01:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just come here from WP:FRS, and this sounds like a good solution that pleases everyone, should we just WP:BOLD and end this RFC early? Iffy★Chat -- 12:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There may be other issues with "Occupants", which is more vague, that will cause more problems than one person's narrow definition of "Tenants". In any event, an admin or template editor will have to make the change, and they'll probably want a broader consensus than we have here so far. - BilCat (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

More vague? Narrow definition? It's been missing leading information since it's been introduced. Arsenal, Man United, Liverpool they are Freeholders, calling them Tenants would be miss-leading information. Barnet football club had a 100 year lease on Underhill Stadium which they have now left, they were Tenants, West Ham are Tenants of the London Stadium. So the field is used correctly for those two clubs. Until it's fixed, it's missing leading information to the reader for many clubs. Govvy (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Only to real-estate agents or lawyers, which most readers aren't, and don't care about splitting hairs when the basic meaning is quite obvious to anyone with common sense. - BilCat (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: Common sense has nothing to do with it, That means you're treating everyone else the same, you're looking at them as idiots and giving them the incorrect English. This is against WP:POV and you're leaning towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Or I don't like change! It needs to be changed, the English is wrong it's against POV and should be sorted out, if you can't see that, then you're in contempt. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There are other definitions of Tenant besides the strict legal sense. In this case, it's the best word to use. - BilCat (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What kind of extra problems would renaming it to "Occupants" cause? Iffy★Chat -- 15:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Occupant" can mean many things, including a person sitting in a seat in the stadium or areana. I'm looking at this from the point of view of an editor who has seen many parameters taken over by vandals, such as "Owner" being changed to the latest visiting quarterback or team to beat the home team. Honestly, I didn't foresee "tenant" being a problem either. No one else besides Govvy has objected to it, but we shouldn't make a sudden change without considering all the possible consequences. - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I told you the problem with using the term Tenant, football clubs are run as businesses or should be, if you don't use business terminology correctly then you're failing the reader. Govvy (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and while you're entitled to it, you aren't entitled to be disruptive about it, which is why this issue was raised in the first place. No one else appears to have any real issue with using Tenant. - BilCat (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not only his edits are becoming disruptive, he also went ahead and made a personal attack in this edit. And looking at his block log, his behavior might end up in ANI if this attitude does not change. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite. It's been "tenant" for years without anyone raising it as an issue. And as there doesn't seem to be a word that it's easy to replace it with, I'm not sure any action is needed unless anyone other than Govvy has an issue with it. Number 57 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I did raise this issue on the WP:Footy project ages ago, so this is the second time I've brought this issue up! I stand by my guns. I don't understand why it's disruptive to argue my case, that seems a strange choice of words. Wording is important, even in the small print, if it was right there wouldn't be an issue, if there is something wrong, people point things out, if I am pointing something out, there is clearly something wrong! Govvy (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Govvy: It's not disruptive to argue your case, though at some point you'll need to accept that consensus is against you, and Drop The Stick. Not doing so can then be disruptive. But I'm primarily referring to your edit warring, which appears to be continuing, as being disruptive, which it certainly is. You have a right disagree with consensus, but not to be disruptive in making sure your opinion is enacted against consensus. - BilCat (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Currently there is a 3–1 opposition against your "everybody wrong, me right" (this formation was intentional) attitude. If you raised this issue in the past then link to the discussion. Furthermore, starting the same edit war at Northumberland Development Project will not get you anywhere but to WP:AN3 or somewhere else where admins would decide what to do with your defiant behavior. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 106#Stadium infoboxes @Number 57: Said it would be a good idea to change it at the time! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can get a consensus for a better word to use than "Tenants" then I wouldn't be opposed to changing it, but so far there doesn't seem to have been a better suggestion. Number 57 14:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, either Occupants or Holders. Implying Tenants still implies a lease, and Freeholders don't have a lease, they have the Freehold. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues with using "Occupants" have been mentioned above. "Holders" is not appropriate as it's not something that normal people would understand to have the equivalent meaning to tenants/occupants/users; in a football sense it means the current holders of a trophy. Number 57 15:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57:I personally think there should be two fields, keep the Tenant field and have a field above that titled Freeholders. So you can see clearly who have owned the stadium and who have rented them out. So the Freeholder field will be the dominant field above. And if needed use the Tenants field for those football clubs that had to sell their stadium and rent them back.(Renting from Government or Council or a Holdings Company) This would be better clear and precise information to the reader. Govvy (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessarily complex and would potentially omit or make it more difficult for readers to identify important details, such as cases where the current owner had not always been the user of a ground (or its owner). It's best to stick with one field where we can see who used the ground and the date range. The only question that I think is realistically up for debate is whether that needs renaming or not. Number 57 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The objection to using "occupant" is simply bizarre, no one would think that someone occupying a seat at Wembley to be the occupant of the stadium (a seat and a stadium is a big difference). For example, would anyone anyone actually consider that the word occupant here simply refers to whoever that might be in a house for just a few hours - [1]? Of course not. Occupant seems to be the best broadest definition, as it covers both tenant and owner-occupier. Hzh (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Home ground of was another suggestion in the previous discussion. I prefer it to Occupant, although would prefer a single word if someone can come up with a better one.   Jts1882 | talk  16:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, Tenants per dictionary definition (see #3 under both American & British [2]) and oknazevad's comment at the top of the subsection below.--John, AF4JM (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading for ease of editing

Two comments, both ultimately about remembering how widely this template is used. Firstly, this template is not just for sports venues, but is also used for theatres, concert halls, and other performing arts venues. So sports-specific terms (and single-sport specific terms in particular; one never calls it a "ground" for ice hockey or basketball) are not really acceptable. Secondly is that this template is used for venues around the world, so dialect specific uses (like "ground") or country-specific legal terms (like "freehold", which is a term of British property law, not universal) are not really applicable, either. In thinking on it, "occupants" is probably an okay solution, but the current use of "tenants" is a valid use of he word in all except pedantic legal definitions, so doesn't really need to change. oknazevad (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Oknazevad, that's the point I've been wanting to make, but couldn't express it clearly enough. As to my objections to "Occupant" being bizarre, it was intended to be, as myh experience on Wikipedia is that people often use parameters in bizarre ways, and that the objections to "Tenant" given here seem just as bizarre to me. My main point is that "Occupant" is more vague than "Tenant", and I think others have borne that out. - BilCat (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, while I'm not supporting a change to "Occupants", I'll abide by it if there's a clear consensus to change it, as my consent isn't necessary to achieve a consensus. That said, if it does cause problems in the future, I'll certainly come back here to address the issue. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: "pedantic legal definitions"? It doesn't matter around the world so much as this is still English wikipedia, you still have to use English. Do you refer to formal or informal use of English? Old or New English? In Old English this would be considered okay, but in modern English, it would be considered incorrect. Have any of you peeps even read Leasehold estate? Govvy (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, this subject was brought up before here, can people please review the previous discussion on Archive1 Thanks. Govvy (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am surprise that there are people who'd argue that "tenants" is a "valid use of the word in all except pedantic legal definitions", since it is understood by all British English speakers to mean someone who occupies a property (through renting or leasing) from a landlord. That is the common meaning of the word. I'm wondering if Americans might have a different regional (or legal) understanding of the word. I'm not arguing against "tenants" as such, but I find the arguments for it odd because they don't make sense in the English that I understand. I don't think there is likely to be such misunderstanding with "occupants". Hzh (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, American English allows for a less formal understanding of the word as simply synonymous with "occupant". And American English is English, so don't even think about going down the road of insinuating that it's inferior, please. oknazevad (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Are you sure about that? Tenant American Cambridge. Govvy (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a tricky area, for example see the additional defintion here and here. An owner may also be the tenant depending on the circumstances. I believe even in the UK, a leaseholder is considered a tenant by law, even if they partly own the freehold (you may find such arrangement in certain multi-occupancy properties). That is however not the how the word is commonly understood - it is more or less synonymous with "renter" to most people in the UK. Common understanding of the term may also vary in different countries.

To Oknazevad, I'm not suggesting that anything is inferior. However, you have argued against using a country-specific term, yet here you are arguing for a country-specific usage that is not generally understood in British English. Hzh (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the more I think about it, WP:COMMONALITY leans me toward "occupant". oknazevad (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I would stress again that I'm not arguing against "tenant", merely that the word is commonly understood to mean "renter of a property" in the UK, and that "occupant" seems a more generally understood word. The original dispute is about Tottenham Hotspur and White Hart Lane, and I have never heard them described as being tenant of White Hart Lane (they are however tenant at Wembley). Whether they can be considered tenant of White Hart Lane in a legal sense I have no idea. Hzh (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we agree to change the field to Occupants? Govvy (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Does it have to be one or the other though? Why not both? Hzh (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK with both. - BilCat (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

Capacity value clarification

Greetings. I am seeking confirmation that Capacity was not intended to list multiple historical capacity values but rather the single current capacity (or for different configurations as documented). I raise the question because many American college football venues are several decades old and have undergone a series of expansions or transformations over their history. Currently, articles for some stadiums list the historical capacities in the field. Some list the values chronologically, other reverse. When I first noted the variation in listing order, I came to the template doc seeking the proper standard and found the template documentation implies, though it does not explicitly state, that capacity is a single value (the current capacity) and therefore, historical listings are not intended usage.

Examples of the variation within a single college football conference:

• Sanford Stadium - chrono
• Ben Hill Griffin Stadium - reverse
• Jordan-Hare Stadium - previously chrono but modded to single value plus a new body section/table: Jordan-Hare Stadium#Capacity history

Can anyone confirm? I'm hoping we can bring some consistency to these many college football venues. Thanks. AUTiger » talk 04:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I would only expect to see the current capacity listed, possibly with any temporary increase/decrease due to works taking place. Number 57 08:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggested parameter: scheduled opening date

It would be helpful to have a scheduled opening date parameter that can be displayed instead of the opening parameter, for proposed or under construction venues. Similar to how Template:Infobox building has a scheduled opening date parameter. SounderBruce 23:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Synonyms and Antonyms over Tenant field use

If you have a football club down as the Owner, then you're repeating that again under the Tenant field... Well, Tenant is Synonyms an Owner (Freeholder) is an Antonyms. The question is about English use and definitions. Should there not be an additional Freeholder field for Antonyms definition? As the Tenant field is currently breaking English rule definition. Govvy (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This was already discussed above. The periods of ownership and tenancy are not necessarily the same. Number 57 11:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: I know about the conversation above, but it didn't address the difference of English language rules of synonyms and antonyms know... not everyone will understand it I guess, I just wanted to raise the point. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sub question

You have the Owner field, if that's in use and there has only ever been one owner operator, who has the venue, then don't need to list the same club in the tenant field right? Govvy (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, as long as the timelines match up and there have been no other users of the ground. Number 57 13:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Architectural parameter

I think the template would benefit from having a parameter for describing the venue's architecture such as "architectural_style" in {{Infobox building}} or "architecture" in {{Infobox NRHP}} that would display along with the listings of architects, contractors, and engineers section. While the parameter likely wouldn't be useful for most athletic stadiums, it would be helpful for many smaller venues such as theatres, concert halls, exhibit halls, and the like. The values could then be linked to articles describing that style such as Art Deco or Neoclassical architecture for instance. Fortguy (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Tenant field

Seriously, can you rewrite explanation in the Tenant field in usage. This field should be used when the value is not equal to the Owner field. The Owner field and the Tenant field should never match each other, this is a conflict of information and incorrect use of English and is seriously bad form. Govvy (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. When a stadium has only been occupied by the current owner for part of its history (e.g. Anfield), it's useful to show this. Number 57 10:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm, Owner field is stackable as well!! Govvy (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's clearer having it in the tenants field. Number 57 16:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear at all, it's misleading-information to the reader, a reader should read correct information. I work on tenancy contracts, agreements, law stuff five days a week, I am really fed-up with people using terminology incorrectly. Govvy (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is misleading – if the owner and tenant are the same, it's pretty clear to the reader what is meant. Again, if you can come up with a better term than tenant, the suggest away. However, as this is the third time you've brought it up, it might be better just to accept that it's not going to change. I'd also recommend not editing stadium article infoboxes to make a point as that rarely ends well. Cheers, Number 57 18:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I have suggested an "Occupant" field before, seems to be a sensible compromise - Americans can continue to use the Tenant field the way they understand it, while British users can use the Occupant field if the team using the stadium are not the tenant (Spurs at Wembley would the tenant, but occupant at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium). Hzh (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what I say does it, I guess people want to be stubborn and make up their own rules even know there are consequences they really can't see. I am surprised by people here and there. Each word needs to be precise in it's meaning, yet a simple word is being used not of it's meaning. There is clearly a problem here because I over and over again are at complaint against the usage. I am surprised at you 57, I would of thought you would understand the simple nature of the word Tenant and it's usage. This a failure of basic English. Govvy (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Former names" parameter

Regarding the "Former names" parameter, I suggest that the infobox heading that is displayed on pages be changed to "Former name(s)" (rather than the current "Former names"), which would then also cover cases where there is only one former name. Perhaps an editor could consider making this change. Thanks! -- Blairall (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional parameters

Can an “Opening” parameter be added so an opening date can be added to a stadium page before it opens? Also, can there please be a “Former tenants” or “Former teams” parameter so that current and former tenants/teams can be listed separately? Thank you so much in advance!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You can use "opened" parameter, |opened= {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}} Govvy (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Opened doesn’t work if it’s a future date. SportsFan007 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Use the parameter without the date template code then. i.e: |opened=1 January 2019 Govvy (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Add a separate template for theaters and cinemas

Especially for theaters in NYC, which only infrequently change their shows, I feel it would be helpful for theaters to have a field "currently showing:". I'm pretty sure this would need a new template.

What do you guys think? WikiMaster111 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Parameters not detailed

The template display shows |city= & |country=, but there is no detail of these in the Usage or Parameter sections. Keith D (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

map caption para

Documented |pushpin_map_caption= is ignored while |map_caption= works as expected. Not sure if other map-related parms have similar problem. See Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park as an example. Frietjes? MB 15:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

User:MB, yes, looks like there is a problem if both |image_map= and |pushpin_map= are used, since the same caption would be used for both maps. I will add a tracking category to find possible problem pages. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

User:MB, okay, it looks like it was an unintentional change by Jonesey95 who probably didn't notice that the parameter name was |pushpin_map_caption= and not simply |map_caption=. I have changed it back to |pushpin_map_caption= and added Category:Pages using infobox venue with both map caption and pushpin map to find places where there could be problems. however, these are only problems if the |map_caption= was intended to be paired with the |pushpin_map= and _not_ intended to be paired with the |image_map=. with 15k pages, it will take some time for the tracking category to fill up. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ugly job by me. I must have been a little tired when I did that one. Sorry for the mix-up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on naming countries in infoboxes

A RfC which may affect this infobox's |location= parameter has been opened at WT:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

New Section: Style

I was truthfully amazed this was not in there. This won't apply to stadiums, but does apply to theatres and other venues which are built using a particular style. I would love if an admin would approve it, or have it open to discussion. Thank you. Phaeton23 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Add elevation?

I've never fiddled with an infobox template, so I don't want to dive in before I try to learn more. I think that, at least for some stadiums, the elevation would be a useful factoid to include. Can I just add it as another item? Also, I'm not sure if I have sufficient authority to do so. Rks13 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree elevation should be added (in a similar way that e.g. Template:Infobox settlement has). Despite this originally being suggested so many years ago already :) It could be relevant for almost all stadiums not close to sea level, as elevation can have an effect on the teams playing there. Sygmoral (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

now added Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Name and Sponsored name

Should there be another field for sponsored name? Or Sponsor? Sometimes you have venues with two different names. Govvy (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Tenants field

Can there be an alternate field for this such as teams and/or events list that can be used on British venues such as Tottenham Hotspur Stadium? As @Govvy has pointed out, tenants has a different definition in the UK. Thank you in advance!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Another suggestion: create a “Template: Infobox British venue” SportsFan007 (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

A definite no to that suggestion. Why do we need yet another section to discuss this though? Number 57 12:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Just to clarify, which suggestion are you saying no to? SportsFan007 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Creating another template, as it's completely pointless to have a separate template for something as minor as this. Please read the discussions above for some more background on this issue. Number 57 13:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok, fair enough, thank you for clarifying. SportsFan007 (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

So if we agree with Number 57 that it is pointless having another template for those using UK meaning of 'tenant', can we agree on a new (alternative) title for the field. Where the club owning the ground have a team playing there, the current term is totally inappropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Tenants field format

On the Template page it’s says not to put parentheses around the years, but I see usages of the template where there are parentheses around there years, such as Las Vegas Stadium, RingCentral Coliseum, and T-Mobile Arena, which format is correct? SportsFan007 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Volume

The documentation shows a |volume= and there are five articles in Category:Pages using infobox venue with unknown parameters that use it. I assume it was long deprecated and the documention was not updated? Frietjes, can you confirm this is not supposed to be supported. Thanks. MB 19:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

User:MB, this was added to the documentation here but (checking the template edit history) there was no corresponding edit to add this parameter to the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Frietjes, I when ahead and removed it. Thanks again. MB 19:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

2 Nicknames

How do I give an venue 2 nicknames? Should I just use the native_name perimeter? 2601:643:8101:64E1:A56A:E43A:CF99:CAFE (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Multiple opened and closed dates

I'm looking at the Keystone Korner article which uses this template. The venue reopened 36 years later in a different city. There doesn't seem to be anyway to reflect this e.g. with a "reopened=" parameter. I don't think the reopened venue warrants a separate article (and I don't know that we want to get into a Ship of Theseus scenario whether it's the same venue) but I also wasn't sure about using two infoboxes in the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you should probably make 2 pages: Keystone Korner (1972-83) and Keystone Korner (2019-present), but two infoboxes is also a good idea. 2601:643:8101:64E1:A56A:E43A:CF99:CAFE (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Mapframe maps?

{{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox shopping mall}} have both recently been updated to automatically show dynamic mapframe maps by default. I am proposing to similarly show such maps by default for this template, with the same optional parameters to adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon; and to similarly allow the mapframe map to be turned off using |mapframe=no. See Template:Infobox building#Mapframe maps and Template talk:Infobox building#Change to the map parameter so Kartographer works for further information. (FYI: I'm making similar proposal for other buildings infobox templates) - Evad37 [talk] 15:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added this feature, and made it turn on by default if there are no other maps in the infobox. please let me know if there are any problems. Frietjes (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Tenants?

I find that term to be kind of misleading for situations where a team owns or partly owns a venue. For example, Chicago's United Center. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Because who ever set it up originally doesn't understand the English usage. I've tried to change that multiple times, people don't even use the fields correctly. Between Owner, Operator and Tenant fields have all been incorrectly used. Govvy (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Oy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Govvy, your name doesn't appear in its one page of edit history. Be bold and change it to what you think is right. The discussion has been had (now and 11 years ago, when the consensus was to change it but nothing happened). Seasider53 (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

A more recent discussion was had in 2018 and there was no consensus to change it; there were several unfruitful follow-ups to that discussion, as you can see in archive 2. As I've said all along, if someone can come up with a better phrase than 'tenant', I'm open to hearing it. Cheers, Number 57 10:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Might be time for another discussion (if that's permissible in Wikipedia's bible of procedures), much as I dislike the prospect of a boatload of perspectives being given but nothing coming of it. Seasider53 (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitely fine to have another discussion. The issue all along (as you can see in the several discussions in the archive) is that nobody has managed to propose a workable alternative. Number 57 11:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

One area which could complicate matters is a situation like Sportsman's Park, which was owned by the Browns and the Cardinals were tenants; then when Busch bought the Cardinals, he also bought the ballpark, and then the Browns became the tenants. I like "occupants" better, though I'm not sure that's ideal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"Home of"? We don't need to explain in the infobox if the team doesn't own the stadium, I'd imagine. Seasider53 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That could work. It seems unambiguous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

For me, the word "occupants" immediately brings to mind seating capacities or maximum occupancy limits.--Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Seasider53: There is lots of discussion that I've done, Owners, should be listed in Owner field, and if they are a Tenant, then list them in Tenant field. The tenant field shouldn't be used for anything other than when a team becomes a Tenant of the stadium. Take Old Trafford, Manchester United are listed as Owner, and they are the only Owner, tenant is completely redundant information. The field shouldn't even be used there. Govvy (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If they are only listed in the owner field, then we have no way of knowing whether they actually play there. We can assume that they do, but I can conceive of situations where a team may own a stadium for a sport other than the one that they play. Or where a team may own a second stadium in its own sport. --Khajidha (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

There's also the risk of mistakes. The Polo Grounds page claims the Giants owned it. Maybe they "owned" the structures, but the land was owned by the Lynch estate, the in-laws of James J. Coogan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention the many, many, many stadiums that are owned by people/groups that do not play any sports. We can't just assume that the listed owner is also a user of the stadium. --Khajidha (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

True. It seems like "Home of" is the best choice unless someone comes up with something better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The Owner, or Landlord can’t be an tenant of themselves. Multiple info boxes are running broken terminology. Not to mention it would also be an illegal operation if that happened. Govvy (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Illegal" how? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you are getting too hung up on the definitions of the words and are ignoring what the fields are for. The field labelled "Owners" is for who owns the building. The field currently labelled "Tenants" is for what teams play there. You object to the word "tenant", we get that. And we have repeatedly asked for a better term. But the information being presented there is important. And having the team name in both fields is not redundant, as we are looking at the team in two different aspects. It's all well and good to tell the reader that the team owns the stadium, but we still have to tell them that the team plays there. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Joint ownership can hold tenancy, however a sole owner (the freeholder) can’t be a tenant unto themselves. The freeholder can rent a property to others, the freeholder can hold the property in one company and be tenant in another, however a company that owns a stadium outright (the freehold) can’t be a tenant. That can be complications and Wikipedia as I am aware has been giving miss-information to the reader for years on multiple articles. What was said earlier (home of) would be far more correct and not miss-information. Govvy (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I will point out that the informal definition of "tenant" used here without actual reference to a legal rental agreement is quite normal in American English. See: https://www.espn.com/chicago/columns/story?columnist=isaacson_melissa&id=4766185 --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I note that article's use of "occupants" and "inhabitants". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh. It had tenants when I searched earlier.--Khajidha (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I double checked this one: https://www.sportsvideo.org/2021/04/28/at-the-rink-chicago-blackhawks-leverage-relationship-with-nbas-bulls-for-fan-less-show-at-united-center/ --Khajidha (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding "Major sporting events hosted" to infobox as tenants

I had asked you to add "Major sporting events hosted" in the infobox as tenants as a concrete example see the same system that was used in the stadiums where the Champions League, Europa League and Europa Conference League finals were held as e.g. Arena Kombëtare, Millennium Stadium, Wembley Stadium (1923) etc. BalkanianActuality (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a good idea unless there is a clearly definition of what a 'Major sporting event' is. The FA Cup final is a major sporting event so in theory each one of those could be listed for Wembley... Number 57 19:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Error in the preview in the documentation

The error is "Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 522: Unable to find the specified location map definition: "Module:Location map/data/&" does not exist." I suppose this should be fixed? Solidest (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Solidest I have changed the documentation so that it no longer shows the error. If this occurs in the article make sure that |pushpin_map= is either empty or has a valid value. If there is still any problems please reopen the request. Terasail^[✉️] 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding an embedded Template:Infobox cricket ground

Can anyone of you (User:MSGJ, User:Terasail), please add an option of embedded Template:Infobox cricket ground template? As there are several stadiums around the world (i.e. Stadium Australia, Bangabandhu National Stadium, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (Delhi) and many more) which were used for international cricket matches earlier, but Infobox venue doesn't contain those parameters to reflect those facts even an embedded Template:Infobox cricket ground not working in the current version of Template:Infobox venue. So, I therefore request any template editor to add the embedded cricket ground infobox Sony R (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Grass as a surface in sports venues

It's about the linking of "grass". There are around a thousand articles about sports venues that have links to grass, typically in the infobox field for surface type (see this suggestive search). The trouble is that grass currently redirects to the article about the family of plants Poaceae, which is not quite the intended meaning. There are several possible link replacements that I can see:

• piping the link to Sports turf, the concept that appears to be the intended meaning (it's currently a redirect to a subsection of the Poaceae article, but that is likely to change);
• piping the link somewhere else (Sod? Lawn?);
• simply unlinking (that appears to have been the more common practice: there are 3x as many articles where the infobox doesn't link "grass" [3]).

Which one is better? – Uanfala (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Is |surface_type even a suitable parameter? I'm assuming this is just for what the majority of the item is, because unless it's a room with hardwood flooring, it's likely to have carpet, stone, grass as a part of the venue, but not neccesarily the playing field. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that it's intended to be the playing surface of a sports venue. And it's largely there to contrast real grass with artificial turf. It's less relevant for say, a multipurpose arena, as those change the floor depending on the sport or event being held; the ice in a hockey arena is always on the floor during the season, but is covered for say, basketball, but it would be silly to say it's got an ice surface. Honestly, I've always thought the parameter should only be used for stadiums and ballparks where the sport is normally played outdoors (even if it's a domed stadium). For any other sort of venue it should be omitted. Especially multipurpose arenas; seeing the infobox say "surface = multiple" or something like that is pointless. So it's a suitable parameter, but should only be used for appropriate venues. Sure as hell isn't needed for an opera house. (Though therein lay the problem with the infobox consolidation pushed by some – specialized parameters for one sort of thing that falls under the broader category windup being misused in inappropriate places on other items in the category).

As for where "grass" should link? It shouldn't. It's a common term, and WP:OVERLINK applies here. oknazevad (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with oknazevad. Just unlink. I just read the text at sports turf and don't see anything helpful there. MB 14:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Shouldn't link per WP:OVERLINK. Nigej (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to think that a specific link about the use of grass for the relevant sport would be best, but there appears to be consensus for unlinking and that's reasonable too. Is anyone willing to go ahead with this unlinking using AWB or a bot? I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the awfully large number of incoming links to the ambiguous Grass go down by almost a third! – Uanfala (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any such articles outside grass court for tennis. I wouldn't mind such a link of it was to a more specific variety of grass (Kentucky bluegrass vs Bermuda grass in baseball and football, for example), but what I really think is a waste is even using the parameter for multipurpose arenas with an entry saying "multi-surface". That's just redundant and pointless. oknazevad (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

So, I'm thinking of placing a bot request to make the following two changes to values of the |surface= parameter:

1. unlink "grass": [[Grass]] -> Grass (on 974 articles)
2. remove the entire parameter if its content is "multi-surface": |surface = Multi-surface -> nothing (180 articles).

Any suggestions, objections or further thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 20 October 2022

Description of suggested change: Adding a new line to the infobox for awards the building has won.

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

MiriamPschtto (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 19 January 2023

−

| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage [...] |upright=1 [...] | header48 = [...] {{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters [...] | logo_size | main contractors

+

| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage [...] |upright={{{logo_upright|1}} [...] | header48 = [...] {{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters [...] | logo_size | logo_upright | main contractors

Add a parameter named logo_upright in the {{#invoke:InfoboxImage}} for the logo image. Per MOS:IMGSIZE, this would allow editors to resize the logo image in a way that respects readers' preferences for image thumbnail size. Accordingly, add logo_upright to the {{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters}} table at the bottom of the template to avoid an erroneous message in an edit preview. This change has been tested with the sandbox, and works functionally. — AFC Vixen 🦊 08:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 15:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)