Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Location

The Coliseum is located in South Los Angeles, not Downtown. Please stop lying.--Truthiness 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And your proof is? --Bobak 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
He's right. USC is in South Central so it would track that the stadium which is south of USC would also be in South Central. Gateman1997 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
With respect, I'm going to dispute that as a clear definition because there are sources that place the University Park neighborhood (USC and Expo Park) in the southern reaches of what is considered the downtown neighborhood (including the Los Angeles Downtown News). Of course, I don't want to create a revert issue over it, so I've tried to created a balance of both views in my recent edit. Historically, Expo Park (then Agricultural Park) was south of the 20,000 person city of LA when USC was founded next door in 1880. However, over the ensuing years the spread of downtown has reached south (downtown in 1880 was actually centered around what is now Olvera Street on the far north of what is considered "downtown"). Now, I'm also not saying that this issue on whether USC/Expo Park is in downtown hasn't been strongly advocated by USC, but thus far the evidence has been in its favor (here's a very recent article on point). With the growth of downtown towards the South Park neighorhood (LACC/Staples and further down) the definition that simply used a freeway to be the dividing line is up for challenge. --Bobak 18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It is absurd and historically inaccurate to claim that Exposition Park is located Downtown, even though you know perfectly well that it is located more than a mile south of the 10 Freeway. Should we also claim that Wrigley Field was located downtown too? It is disrespectful to natives and residents of South Los Angeles to claim that one of their neighborhood's jewels isn't in their part of town. It is akin to reporters on "Entertainment Tonight" claiming that the Shrine Auditorium is in "Hollywood." You should likewise be ashamed of your rhetoric.--Truthiness 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"Rhetoric"? I'm not trying to insult anyone, and I'm not trying to upset anyone: this is not my personal attempt to redefine downtown. There is a trend growing, as noted in Wikipedia's own University Park, Los Angeles, California article (which I have not previously edited), that has USC/Expo Park reorienting itself to downtown Los Angeles which is growing southwards --like many LA neighborhood articles, its underwritten because it misses the BID: There is a development area that's been created around this very connection, the Figueroa Cooridor Partnership (I will add this to the University Park article). Eight years ago I personally attended a Central City Association meeting where the trend was acknowledged. Even on the maps of LA Council districts the University Park neighborhood is split between the 1st and 8th. --Bobak 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've put in a separate section ("Location") which correctly identifies that the neighborhood is University Park. If anyone wants to read more about the district dispute, they can easily access the "University Park, Los Angeles, California" article from this section. I've made the same change in the USC article ("downtown" --> "University Park"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truthiness (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
There was a long article in the LA Times within the last month or so about this trend. But still, historically the area has always been in South Central. BlankVerse 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How's this as what I think will be a mutually acceptable solution: Can we simply make the description as located in University Park, Los Angeles, California? That will leave any issues over actual location for the neighborhood article, not the Coliseum where I think we can agree it really shouldn't be a focus. --Bobak 20:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually inserted the above suggestion before I realized Truthiness had added the location section, so I've reverted myself to propose it here. --Bobak 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I also didn't realize that Truthiness had made the smart change to USC's article that I am re-suggesting for this article (he did it the second before I cross-checked that article for ideas). So, yeah... Can we run with that here? :-) --Bobak 20:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. I wrote the separate "Location" section into the Coliseum entry before realizing that there was an entry for University Park that says pretty much the same thing. If it's OK with you, I'll go ahead and fix it. In regards to an article you linked earlier, I don't consider the Los Angeles Downtown News to be an objective source.--Truthiness 21:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The new edit looks fine. While I agree that the LA Downtown news has a clear pro-business slant like most similar downtown papers (ex: the Downtown Journal in Minneapolis is similar), I don't see a clear bias in areas like this. --Bobak 16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Does L.A. even have a "downtown"? 69.42.17.116 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Architecture?

Does anyone know what style of architecture the Coliseum is in?

I'd call it the "Oval" school of architecture. Actually, aside from the (neo-classic?) peristyle, it looks about the same as any big stadium of its era only "more so". I always thought it looked like it belonged in Los Angeles, so maybe the "Angelino" school? Wahkeenah 18:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the best editing jobs that anyone has ever done on any of my work. Rlquall

Incorrect info is listed under Tenants, UCLA does not play their home games there, at least for football.

NEED A PICTURE OF THE COLISEUM, HOW CAN WE DO THAT??

Photo(s) requested

NEED A PICTURE OF THE COLISEUM, HOW CAN WE DO THAT??

This article is mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Requested photos. --3bulletproof16 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1972 Superbowl of Motocross

I added the 1972 Superbowl of Motocross which has evolved into the stadium Supercross events held in major league stadiums across the United States and Canada. Someone deleted it. I don't understand how someone can take it upon themselves to delete an actual event. Since 1972, stadium supercross has become one of the most attended events in motor racing. Is there a reason why only major ball and stick sports are to be mentioned in this article?Orsoni 06:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it is a noteworthy event and should be in the article. The paragraph was deleted by 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs) (without any explanation in the edit summary, and also marked as a minor edit). Since you've brought up the issue on this article's talk page, hopefully 3bulletproof16 will also join the discussion and explain the deletion. BlankVerse 14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Supercross is noteworthy and did belong there. The guidelines to Wikipedia say to make bold edits. But, one of the points of Wikipedia:Etiquette which 3bulletproof16 (a many article contributor) ignored is: Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. Doing that with no explanation is a Bad thing. Orsoni, please re-add and keep an eye out. I might point out that there have been some noteworthy concerts like the Rolling Stones and the Who at the Coliseum. Group29 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The way it was written seemed notable to me. --Bobak 16:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that any of the Coliseum concerts can be considered noteworthy, unless they recorded most or all of a live album at the Coliseum. Individual concerts shouldn't be listed, but you could list some of the artists who have performed concerts at the coliseum. The problem with lists like that, however, is that they tend to just keep growing. Then people start adding opening acts, ad infinitum. BlankVerse 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dodgers-Bosox game photo?

I really hope someone is able to find/donate a photo that we can use for this article. --Bobak (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I second-base that motion. Something showing the dimensions, assuming they even post that, would be good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As for dimensions, according to the LA Times interactive flash graphic from today [1], the left field line is 201' with a 60' foot fence (compared to 251' and a 42' fence in 1958), center is 380' with a 6' fence (compared to 417' in '58) and right is 300' (same in '58). --Bobak (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. Pictures would still be good, though, to back up the theoretical. So I take it that if it clears the left field screen it's a homer, even at 200 feet? And it's the smallest left field in history. Manny Ramirez should love it - both ways. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
From what I gathered from the paper, yes --as the classic Wally Moon "Moon Shots" did count as homers over the old fence. There's a good picture of the current converted field here, but I doubt we can get it for the article. --Bobak (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Of course, the field was of regulation size, such as it was, during 1958-1961 (that's why they re-regulated it in the rules). And the problem is obvious - there's a fourth tier of seating at field level compared with 1958-1961, so they have to really squeeze it in. It's just an exhibition, so the dimensions rules don't matter so much. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, and semi-seriously, could we list the capacity for baseball as 115,300 now? --Bobak (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny. I think the only figure that counts is the capacity during actual major league years. Given the close confines, there will never be a regulation game played there again unless they rip out a bunch of seats. This was an exhibition game, a "stunt" as it were. The games of 1958-1961 are the ones that counted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, seating capacity is literally that, it does not include standees. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Distinction

"...of being the only stadium in the world to host the Olympic games, World Series and the Super Bowl." I'd argue that this is something all that special. Seeing how the World Series (despite its name) and the Super Bowl are national sports events, it is not surprising that no non-US stadium has ever hosted these, which only leaves Francis Field in Saint Louis (which is much too small by contemporary standards to host a large sports event), and Centennial Olympic Stadium in Atlants. Furthermore, it is probably not all that rare for an Olympic stadium to later host other national high-profile events. What is notable is that it is the only stadium to ever have been the centerpiece of two Olympic games. I changed it accordingly, but I thought I'd just give a reason here. --Flosch (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"...in the world" is clearly superfluous, as the Series and the Super Bowl are only held in the USA (or Canada). It's rare, though, to even have the chance of hitting all three. Turner Field would have been the best other chance, but it was converted after the Olympics and almost certainly will never hold a Super Bowl. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess you're right about that.--Flosch (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Note how I re-worded it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Use

It appears a scene of the Pornographic film The Gang Bang Girl 32, was filmed at the Coliseum.[2]--68.4.122.35 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/31/aurora-snow-inside-the-l-a-coliseum-porno.html -- 212.235.98.161 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My late father said the Coliseum was used by the U.S. Army during World War II. He told me about being inside the stadium for training on Christmas Day one year. Can anyone else confirm this? 192.127.94.7 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Olympic Cauldron

I know there was an Olympic Cauldron in 1928 and the torch relay started in 1936, but I have never seen anything about a cauldron in 1932, I know it makes perfect sense to have one, but there are no sources linked to this, the cauldron was definitely there in 1984 but I'm not sure, I won't remove anything as it's not my responsibility, so if anyone could find some sources that say it was used in 1932 (I'll try as well) then we know its accurate.82.5.224.82 (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that I've found some pictures on the internet and a video from the games in 1932 that show the Olympic Cauldron82.5.224.82 (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the video if anyone wants to use it as a source [1]82.5.224.82 (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwp_BoCo6lU. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Notable events

The apex of professional wrestling in Southern California occurred at the Coliseum in 1971, with a card headlined by a match (known in wrestling as a blow off match of a feud) between Freddie Blassie and John Tolos. The reported attendance for the event was approximately 26,000. Without further searching to be absoulely certain, this was possibly the largest audience for professional wrestling in North America between 1961 (a card at Comiskey Park headlined by Pat O'Connor versus Buddy Rogers) and 1980 (a card at the Louisiana Superdome headlined by Junkyard Dog versus Michael Hayes). This match is mentioned in Blassie's autobiography and perhaps a few other places. I dunno about anywhere else, since coverage of pro wrestling on Wikipedia is very biased towards the WWE and towards recent events.RadioKAOS (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Soccer Games

So, someone has been adding a large number of soccer results here. They seem like they may be a bit too much information. Thoughts? Embowaf (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's been over a year and I haven't gotten any response so I may remove them soon if no one speaks up. We don't list the dates, results, and attendance of every single Olympic Event, NFL Game, USC or UCLA Football Game, Track event, etc, so why should we list every soccer game? Embowaf (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do. I'm not even at noob level in my wikieditness, but I came to this talk page to ask the same question. Some of these lists don't even note the number in attendance, and the ones that do are a fraction of the stadium's capacity. TMI indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD59:CEB0:75EA:FCCF:899D:4EA4 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Rams

Please wait for an official statement about the Rams returning to the Coliseum before adding it back to the tenant list. All signs point to that happening, but as of this writing, it's all speculation and assumption. Not saying it won't happen, but there's nothing wrong with waiting until the agreement is actually announced to add it. Should that happen (and I expect it will in the next few days), it should read "2016–present", not "2016–2018". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so until the Rams move to Inglewood (and assuming they do play the next three seasons at the Coliseum), then the tenant list should say "present" once it's official that they are moving there. The same will be true for the Chargers if they also move to LA and use the Coliseum. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Because of WP:CRYSTAL, the tenant list should remain at "2016–present" until the Rams actually move out of the Coliseum. While it is scheduled to be after the 2018 season, given that plans can, and often do, change, keeping it as "present" means it is accurate until the Rams leave as opposed to it being inaccurate if plans change. The same goes for the lead. While mentioning the Rams in the lead is certainly appropriate, the planned years are mentioned later in the article and are specified as being tentative. The lead, being a summary of the entire article, need only state the present reality: the Coliseum is home to the Rams now temporarily until their new stadium is done. Again, that is scheduled for 2019, but since that is hardly set in stone, especially since construction hasn't even started has just started, it's best to leave that out of the lead. It is still accurate to leave out the details of the plans, but it also keeps the article from getting dated quicker than it needs to. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Raiders

Why is the Raiders' presence in the Coliseum totally ignored in the article? I'm going to put something about them into the introduction. 69.42.17.116 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Soccer, Again

This seems to have become an issue once again, so we can discus it here, but as was decided before, I will remove the superfluous soccer information unless some other consensus is reached. This is an incredibly historic stadium, and soccer barely factors into that. Especially when you consider that some of the games listed are outdrawn by the attendance at USC/UCLA soccer matches. We do not list every football game, baseball game, or track meet. There is no reason to do so with soccer. Embowaf (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There being added on other stadium articles too. Unfortunately when I remove them, they get added back. GoPurple'nGold24 06:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

NFL capacity ?

"The facility has a permanent seating capacity of 93,607 for USC football games, making it the largest football stadium in the Pac-12 Conference, and the fourth largest in the NFL." huh ? That would make it the largest in the NFL. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. 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:

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) 03:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. 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:

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) 12:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Soccer (once again)

The section has no references. Plus it looks like it was edited by someone who is not a native English speaker. It needs some serious revision.

172.251.69.173 (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Angeles_Memorial_Coliseum/Archive_1&oldid=1140180738"