Talk:Sophia Gardens (cricket ground)

Untitled

I want to know the geographic coordinates of the location mentioned in this article and if there's a differences between the Sophia Gardens and The Sophia Gardens Pavilion. --84.138.119.242 13:55 & 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
SWALEC Stadium → Sophia Gardens — Move to the stadium's common name, rather than the rarely used, sponsored alternative. — Dancarney (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Proof? Knepflerle (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Not conclusive, but "swalec stadium" -"sophia gardens" gives 18,500 ghits, "sophia gardens" -"swalec stadium" gives 37,900. Listed in the pretty comprehensive cricinfo site as Sophia Gardens [1]. Dancarney (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The correct name of the building is Swalec Stadium. This is how all arenas/stadiums on Wikipedia are named, by their current name rather than old names or nicknames. TJ Spyke 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current name of the building should be the title of the article. Sophia Gardens redirects here anyways, and is mentioned in the article. There's really no need to move it. ƒingers^on_Roids 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The policy used on Wikipedia is that of using the common name, not the latest. See The Oval, or Valley Parade. My opinion is that SWALEC Stadium should redirect to Sophia Gardens, and that its sponsored name should be noted within the text. Dancarney (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Articles should use the common name, which in this case is Sophia Gardens. I have never heard SWALEC Stadium being used during TV coverage, and cannot recall having read it in the press either. _wjemather^bigissue 11:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sophia Gardens is a park, containing several other buildings. There should be a separate article for the park, with a link to the stadium. Deb (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

...which I've now created. Deb (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I thoroughly dislike the name, but that doesn't enter into it: SWALEC Stadium is the official title now, and so we should use it. Centurion Park's article is now at SuperSport Park. (Grounds such as The (Brit) Oval, where the traditional name has been augmented rather than obliterated, are not the same thing.) Loganberry (Talk) 04:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - U.K. football grounds are at their traditional (and common) nmes, no reason why this one cricket ground should be different. - fchd (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Just because other articles are at the wrong name doesn't mean this one should. If anything, somebody should request those articles be moved to the correct names. TJ Spyke 01:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There's been several discussions over it - Priestfield Stadium and Bescot Stadium immediately spring to mind. Where a stadium has a traditional name and a sponsor name, discussions have always (I think it's always anyway), come out in favour of the traditional name. It's also the same principle that (football) league articles are at their traditional name rather than the here today, gone tomorrow, sponsor names (e.g. Isthmian League, Western League etc.) - fchd (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support Australian grounds are named after there common name. Had a similar discussion on whether Aurora Stadium (current sponsors name) should be renamed back to York Park (Original, non sponsers Name). It was decided upon that the original name should be used. It should be the same for every article on a sporting ground on wikipedia. Doesn't make sense for each ground to be different. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 25 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS. Per Cúchullain's comments, there would appear to be a technical hurdle preventing the move as requested. Sophia Gardens is already occupied via an unrelated WP:RM move. Hadal (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

---

SWALEC Stadium → Sophia Gardens – In reliable sources that deal with the entire history of the ground, not just its recent history, it is referred to as "Sophia Gardens". ESPNcricinfo refers to the ground as "Sophia Gardens", with "SWALEC Stadium" given as an alias, while CricketArchive acknowledges that the ground has been referred to 'officially' as "SWALEC Stadium" since 2008 but still titles its overall page about the ground using the name "Sophia Gardens". Furthermore, Google reveals 946,000 hits for 'Sophia Gardens' and 191,000 hits for 'SWALEC Stadium'. – PeeJay 16:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - And when I refer to "reliable sources", I of course refer to sources that do not have a commercial affiliation to Glamorgan CCC. The club website and any official histories of the club/ground will obviously refer to it as SWALEC Stadium as part of the licensing agreement. – PeeJay 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support. Besides the two internet sites, there are numerous books which refer to the ground by its unsponsored name. When the sponsorship ends, as it will sooner or later, the "official" name will revert as they always do. The traditional name should always be used for stadia with the sponsorship name a redirect to it. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment see Talk:City of Manchester Stadium#Requested move 18 February 2015 for a similar discussion under way at the moment. Harrias ^talk 19:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Key point. It is clear in the City of Manchester Stadium discussion that the football project never use sponsorship names except in cases where a new stadium opens with one (e.g., the Emirates Stadium) and has never been known as anything else. Cricket and football need to be completely aligned in this respect. This reinforces the argument that the Glamorgan ground should be called Sophia Gardens Cricket Ground, as it always has been and will be again when this sponsorship deal expires. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strong objection – Sophia Gardens is a park in Cardiff where the stadium is located. We already have an article on the park. It would be confusing to have an article called "Sophia Gardens" which is not about the park. I suggest "Sophia Gardens Stadium". Verbcatcher (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you're right about this and I've already raised it with PeeJay. The rename should be to Sophia Gardens Cricket Ground which is the current redirect. Sophia Gardens redirects to Sophia Gardens, Cardiff which is about the whole park. I've amended the rename statement above. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I was having a think about the suggestion to move the article to Sophia Gardens Cricket Ground, and I realised the ground is never referred to by that name. It's either "Sophia Gardens" or "SWALEC Stadium". I'd be happy to add "cricket ground" as a disambiguator, but it would have to be in parentheses. I still think the article should be moved to Sophia Gardens, though, as I believe most instances where people refer to Sophia Gardens, they're talking about the cricket ground. – PeeJay 08:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Object to moving to "Sophia Gardens", but would support "Sophia Gardens (cricket ground)". Harrias ^talk 08:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

See also Talk:Sophia Gardens, Cardiff#Requested move 25 March 2015. These related moves should have been raised together using "Requesting multiple page moves". Verbcatcher (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support for Sophia Gardens Stadium or Sophia Gardens Cricket Ground. The ground has a history before it became the SWALEC, sponsorship is temporary anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, it's not called "Sophia Gardens Stadium" or "Sophia Gardens Cricket Ground", it's called "Sophia Gardens", hence the option proposed above: Sophia Gardens (cricket ground). – PeeJay 20:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Further complication: In rock music before 1982 "Sophia Gardens" meant Sophia Gardens Pavilion, a concert hall unrelated to the cricket ground. When a band "played Sophia Gardens" they played in the Sophia Gardens Pavilion. See setlist.fm - Jimi Hendrix, www.bradfordtimeline.co.uk, www.billygraham.org.uk. This is an archaic usage, but supports a disambiguation page at Sophia Gardens, linking to the park, the cricket ground and the pavilion. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say there is a clear consensus in favour of a move back to Sophia Gardens and it only remains to confirm the actual title of the article to overcome the disambiguity problem. Can we go ahead with Sophia Gardens (cricket ground)? Jack | ^{talk page} 20:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I closed the RM at Talk:Sophia Gardens, so that name is no longer available unless the article were added as a multi-move. However, a quick search on my end shows that "SWALEC Stadium" receives 1,650 Google News hits, compared to only 715 for "Sophia Gardens", any number of which are actually references to the park itself. Even if "SWALEC Stadium" was less common, it would still be preferable natural disambiguation over titles requiring parenthetical disambiguation, like Sophia Gardens (cricket ground).--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contested moves

This article has today been moved from SWALEC Stadium to Sophia Gardens (cricket ground) in spite of the move discussion closure decision that went against this move. The move was then reverted. If you think the closure ruling was perverse then I suggest starting a Wikipedia:Move review. Alternatively, resume the move discussion using WP:RM#CM. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read the above discussion, you can see a clear preference for the name Sophia Gardens (cricket ground). The move was kosher. Move it back there now, please. – PeeJay 21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The closer closed the move as no consensus, which defaults to the current title. If you disagree, you can take it up with the closer, and if you're still not satisfied, as Verbcatcher says, you can bring it to move review or start a new move request.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a stupid rule. The discussion declined the move to Sophia Gardens, but since pretty much everyone in the discussion agreed that Sophia Gardens (cricket ground) is an acceptable title, that doesn't preclude a move to that title separately from the discussion. – PeeJay 08:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The closing admin gauged the consensus and this was their reading. You're welcome to ask for clarification from them, but I do reiterate that "Sophia Gardens", nevermind "Sophia Gardens (cricket ground)" does appear to be less common in sources than "SWALEC Stadium".--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because the closing admin made one decision, that doesn't stop me from making my own judgement. User:Hadal, would you care to comment on my interpretation of the comments made in the RM discussion? There's clearly a preference for Sophia Gardens (cricket ground), and most people seem to believe that name should take precedence over any current sponsored name. – PeeJay 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you can't unilaterally enforce your opinion when there have already been two community discussions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Cuchullain, you're missing the point. My original request to move the article to Sophia Gardens was struck down for obvious reasons. Most of the contributors to the above discussion recognised this and suggested Sophia Gardens (cricket ground) or Sophia Gardens Cricket Ground (the former of which is preferable due to the latter being used only EXTREMELY rarely). I interpreted User:Hadal's closure as it was meant: there was no consensus to move to Sophia Gardens, but there seems to be a clear consensus to move to Sophia Gardens (cricket ground). Don't you agree? – PeeJay 20:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I closed the last request as "NO CONSENSUS" on technical grounds-- both to avoid reverts like this, and to give the nominator(s) a chance to relist the request. FOR THE RECORD, my closure of the discussion should not be interpreted as being *against* User:PeeJay2K3's move and should not be used as a reason to oppose the move in itself. As an otherwise uninvolved party, I support a relisting to better gauge the situation in light of the previous discussion. -Hadal (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Hadal. I'll see about relisting the page to be moved, but don't you think it would save time just to gauge the responses given in the above discussion and make the move that received the most support, i.e. to Sophia Gardens (cricket ground)? – PeeJay 20:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that would be a good idea, since as I said, "Sophia Gardens (cricket ground)" has problems of its own. Getting direct responses to that title sounds like a plan, though it might be better to just start a new discussion rather than re-opening the old one, considering that it just closed after 12 days with no new comment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

---

SWALEC Stadium → Sophia Gardens (cricket ground) – The above move was turned down due to a naming clash with the eponymous Sophia Gardens park. Several people in the discussion suggested Sophia Gardens (cricket ground) as a disambiguator, but since we can't just move the page despite most people already having agreed on the name, here's another discussion. Please !vote. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC) – PeeJay 09:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support The options appear to be "Sophia Gardens (cricket ground)", "Sophia Gardens cricket ground", something with "stadium" in it, or leave it as "SWALEC Stadium". The applicable guideline seems to be WP:COMMONNAME, but we should also aim for consistency with similar articles. For major cricket grounds where the issue arises the traditional name appears to be preferred over the sponsored name. See The Oval, Rose Bowl (cricket ground), Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Riverside Ground, Ellis Park Stadium, Wanderers Stadium and Lancaster Park. Or do your own survey in the subcategories of Category:Test cricket grounds. As to the brackets, "Rose Bowl (cricket ground)" and "Old Trafford Cricket Ground" show that both forms have been used. Brackets are a Wikipedia marker for disambiguation (used in templates including Template:PAGENAMEBASE). It seems the ground is referred to by cricket fans as "Sophia Gardens", so I favour "Sophia Gardens (cricket ground)". Verbcatcher (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support Checking through some sites that can be considered reliable sources from recent mentions of the ground shows that:
  • Named as Sophia Gardens in The Telegraph [2]
  • The Independent use Sophia Gardens [3] and SWALEC Stadium [4].
  • The Guardian use both Sophia Gardens [5] and Swalec [sic] Stadium [6], as do Cricinfo [7][8]
  • The Times only use SWALEC Stadium [9], and the BBC only Swalec Stadium [10]

The ground was only known as Sophia Gardens from 1967-2008, and it seems that the sponsored name, as well as being temporary, has not passed fully into common usage. Even when the sponsored name is used, it is not uniformly used correctly (i.e. all in caps). As such, Sophia Gardens (cricket ground) seems to be the most appropriate title for this article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As an interesting side-note, the all-caps thing is a quirk of the Guardian's style guide. They say, if you can read an acronym as a word (e.g. Fifa, Uefa, Nasa, Swalec), you only capitalise the first letter, whereas all caps is reserved for acronyms where you pronounce each letter individually (e.g. NHS). – PeeJay 10:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to oppose this move as written. The most relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME, and it appears that "SWALEC Stadium" is the common name. Compare 1930 Google News hits for "SWALEC Stadium" vs. only 732 for "Sophia Gardens", many of which are actually about the park, rather than the cricket stadium specifically. Google Books returns 424 hits for "Sophia Gardens" cricket, compared to 758 for "SWALEC Stadium" cricket.
  Since the name change, the gap has only widened.Secondly, even if SWALEC Stadium were less common, per the WP:AT policy, it would still be preferable as natural disambiguation to a title with parentheses like "Sophia Gardens (cricket ground)".--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Drawing inspiration from WP:IAR, the trend on Wikipedia has been to avoid sponsored names where possible. Sophia Gardens has been known as such for far longer than it has been or will ever be known as the SWALEC Stadium. – PeeJay 16:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - historically known as Sophia Gardens. SWALEC Stadium is a temporary sponsor name, much like Ageas Bowl aka Rose Bowl. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support For most of its history, it hasn't been the SWALEC- the sponsor name is temporary (albeit for quite a few years), and many events have happened before it was known as the SWALEC, as I'm sure many will when SWALEC eventually stop sponsoring it. 22:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Sophia Gardens is the permanent long-term name, not a temporary commercial arrangement. Johnlp (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It's sponsorship and not a permanent naming. We could be changing the article every three years. Stick to Sophia Gardens. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sophia Gardens (cricket ground). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926165111/http://www.glamorgancricket.com/news_view.php?news_id=1277 to http://www.glamorgancricket.com/news_view.php?news_id=1277

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Out of date

This whole article is out of date and badly needs updating. Ehrenkater (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Don't let us stop you. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)