This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Baseball Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Football: American & Canadian Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance). Template:WikiProject Sports facilities task force

Note: The name has changed to Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum -- I updated most references but there needs to be more done and I don't have access.

Wasn't it originally called the "Alameda County Stadium", at least colloquially? "Alameda County Stadium" is what I remember the broadcasters saying during the three sets of World Series in the 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind273 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's been the Oakland Alameda County Coliseum since it opening in 1966 with the exception of Network Associates/McAfee years. The broadcasters may have called it "Alameda County Stadium" erroneously however. I've heard broadcasters and video games call it "Oakland Alameda County Stadium" over the years. Doesn't mean either was correct. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.230.44 (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex was the outdoor stadium and the indoor arena. The outdoor stadium was commonly called "the Coliseum", while the arena was called "The Coliseum arena".

While the company did change its name to McAfee, the stadium still hasn't undergone the name change yet. The official website still references Network Associates Coliseum. (submitted by a McAfee employee)

I added the old nickname, the net, to the article. 24.7.109.167 19:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the A's move to a new ballpark, will the Raiders change the semi-circle seating section?--BigMac1212 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how they can. They'd have to basically tear the older part of the stadium down which isn't very cost effective. Gateman1997 02:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-circle stands basically consist of two-thirds of the stadium. So unless the city wants to fork over additional money again to rebuild the stadium I don't see it happening. Gemini2525 11:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Mount Davis article should be merged into the McAfee Coliseum article as the Mount Davis article merely describes a part of McAfee Coliseum.

Already done Irish Matador 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:McAfee Coliseum logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no recollection of Network Associates Coliseum being referred to as "The Net" other than in a video game, where the default sportscasters claim that people call it as such. No one ever called it that. It has and always will be simply the Coliseum. Fans may have sometimes mocked it that way, but it never became an official nickname, much like the current mocking "The Mac" for McAfee. Also, Oracle Arena is still referred to as The Arena. This is from its days as The Oakland Arena/The Arena In Oakland. 24.4.131.142 20:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The A's used "the Net" in some advertising, specifically they had a "see you at the Net" ad campaign a few years ago. However no one outside the team ever uses anything but "the Coliseum" in my experience. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any mention of the BART and Amtrak stations from this article? A pedestrian bridge directly links from the elevated track level at the BART station to the Coliseum, passing over the nearby Amtrak tracks. --Geopgeop (T) 06:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did the coliseum begin its frustrating no re-entry policy? 76.126.15.78 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in force since my first game there in 1987. Not unlike most stadiums. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures in this article are decent baseball shots of the A's playing at the Coliseum but I think a picture or two of the Raiders playing football at the Coliseum should also be added. Even though there are more baseball home games than football home games, a couple of football pics could be added as some would argue that the Coliseum looks more like a football stadium since the 1996 Renovation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf78 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, especially since the football configuration looks markedly different. It also wouldn't hurt to include a description in the article of how they change the configuration for the two sports. 99.141.50.22 (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on this talk page specifically to ask why there is no explanation as to how they convert the stadium for each sport. I couldn't find much on Google either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.65.74 (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it. It's a fairly simple operation, they pull out some seats in the main bowl and move them into the parking lot while moving in some seats from the lot to extend out the baseball bleachers.

I've added some more football pictures to the article. Commandr Cody (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the former three-column list into a table in the seating capacity section. Here's the wikicoding, if anyone cares:

{{col-begin}}{{col-break}}
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Baseball
|-
! scope="row" | Years
! scope="row" | Capacity
|-
! scope="row" | 1968-1976
| 50,000
|-
! scope="row" | 1977-1980
| 49,649
|-
! scope="row" | 1981-1982
| 50,255
|-
! scope="row" | 1983-1984
| 50,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1985
| 50,255
|-
! scope="row" | 1986
| 50,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1987
| 49,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1988
| 50,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1989
| 49,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1990
| 48,219
|-
! scope="row" | 1991
| 47,450
|-
! scope="row" | 1992-1995
| 47,313
|-
! scope="row" | 1996-1997
| 39,875
|-
! scope="row" | 1998-2005
| 43,662
|-
! scope="row" | 2006-2007
| 34,077
|-
! scope="row" | 2008-present
| 35,067
|}
{{col-break}}
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Football
|-
! scope="row" | Years
! scope="row" | Capacity
|-
! scope="row" | 1966-1976
| 54,587
|-
! scope="row" | 1977-1988
| 54,615
|-
! scope="row" | 1989-1995
| 54,444
|-
! scope="row" | 1996-present
| 63,026
|}
{{col-end}}

I just wanted to notify this talk page about my edit. 71.146.10.213 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "the A's continue to refer to the stadium as the Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum in all official team communications and on team websites." and it provides a source. I'm sure this was previously true, but as it stands, the A's seem to refer to the stadium as O.co Coliseum on the official website linked under External links.

Point being - I've removed that line from the article. If the A's do refer to it by its old name in some other media, obviously the article should be changed to say so.

64.203.32.214 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.co Coliseum → Oakland Coliseum – Per WP:COMMONNAME and the preponderance of the Five Virtues for a title listed at WP:AT. First of all, let's recap what the old brickyard has been formally named offically:

• Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum (1966–1998)
• Network Associates Coliseum (1998–2004)
• McAfee Coliseum (2004–2008)
• Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum (2008–2011)
• Overstock.com Coliseum (2011)
• O.co Coliseum (2011-2014)

Going forward, who knows? There's no reason to assume that there won't be more "names" to come before the old girl breathes her last.

The Five Virtues

The Five Virtues are of article titles given at WP:AT are:

1. Recognizability (The title is a name or description of the subject that someone failiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize)
2. Naturalness (The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English)
3. Precision (The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects)
4. Conciseness (The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects), and
5. Consistency (The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles)

Certainly "Oakland Coliseum" is far more recognizable and more natural. As to precision "Oakland Coliseum" it is far more precise, considering that the article is about the entity over the course of its existence generally (1966-present) rather than specifically to its nature, history, or configuration in the period 2011-present. Not sure about consistency with other titles.

As to concision, it is true that "O.co" is fewer letters than "Oakland", but probably not fewer words (it might be or it might be more, depending on if you count "O.co" as one word, more than one word, or not a word at all). It is probably more syllables ("Oh dot coh col ah see um" vs. "Oke land col ah see um") depending on if one pronounces the dot. If concision is valorized in order to make the title easier to read, "O.co" with a punctuation mark in the middle of a word (or a dot instead of a space between two words, or whatever they are doing there) certainly fails badly there. So trying be fair (and IMO extremely generous to "O.co"), let's call that one a draw.

So that's 3-0-1 of the Five Virtues in favor of the move (I'm not counting Consistency since I don't know the facts, but even if "O.co" is more consistent that's still 3-1-1 favoring the move.) The Five Virtues are really important, WP:AT is a policy and an venerable and important one.

But what about sources?

But wait. WP:AT also says "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". Generally. Let's talk about this.

I'm going to assume that preponderance of sources, at least since 2011, use "O.co" to denote the stadium; I'm not going to check this because it must be true or the article would never have been given this name and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So OK, moving forward. Three things about that.

First, I looked into this in detail a while back for another matter, and what I found was that WP:AT says that because a title which is used by the great preponderance of reliable sources will also almost always best embody most of the Five Virtues. Of course it will. It would be quite unusual for a name to be used by a great preponderance of reliable sources in English but have the great preponderance of readers expect and understand. Almost always. But not always, it appears, and that sentence did not consider what happens when corporate marketeers getting their mitts on the rights to jerk around with the name of large and long-lived civic gathering places and so forth.

Second, to the extent that the preponderance of reliable sources uses "O.co", some of those are captive sources. The broadcasters must refer in their broadcasts to "O.co Coliseum" by contract (I assume, and contract or no they're surely be fired if they refuse to). The newspapers can't be legally required to, but they have a strong incentive to not put themselves in a position where they are are odds with the the stadium operators (Anschutz Entertainment Group) and owners (the City of Oakland and Almeda County); if O.co complains to the city and the city talks to AEG and your reporter is not welcome in the locker room that's a problem and there's no reason for a publisher to make that problem for itself. From there a likely trickle-down mindless-copycatting effect may be in play. None of this has anything to do with what the preponderance of actual people actually call this entity.

Third, no sources refer to this entity as "O.co" before 2011. For the great majority of its life another name was used (and likely will be in future, when O.co gets tired of this nonsense). It's silly to say "Well, here are three good refs from 2011-2014 that use "O.co" as the name, and 27 good refs from 1966-2011 that use another name (mostly Oakland Coliseum or some variant), so let's ignore the 27 and go with the three".

Miscellaneous issues

It has been called Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum more times than any other name (twice). It has been called called Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum for a longer time than any other name. It is probably well past the halfway point of its existence, and when it is finally torn down and referred to only in the past tense, it will almost certainly be referred to as either "Oakland Coliseum" or "Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum" generally, except in the probably relatively rare instances when a specific reference to McAfee Coliseum and so forth is called for.

Yeah sure we can change the name after it's torn down, but in the meantime, considering our mirrors and many incoming links and references from outside, we are leaving a trail of redirect and double-redirect garbage for future readers to sort through. This is not a service to the reader or to history. It is not encyclopedic, in other words.

And... what happens when PepsiCo is running a promotion and renames Pepsi Stadium to New Raspberry Diet Pepsi Stadium just for the month of August 2018? What happens when a movie studio gets naming rights and changes the name to its latest release every month? What happens when a stadium is named Pop!WOW Software Park for baseball games and Kompressor Infrastructure Stadium for football games? What happens when it is given a non-descriptive name such as "Pop!WOW FunCloud". What happens if a stadium is named "Governor Joe Smith Eats Kittens Alive Stadium"? OK, little far out, but if we feel we have to dance like puppets to what somebody has paid to be the "official" name regardless of what people actually call it or how the reader is best served, same principle would apply.

If all this is still not convincing, another way to approach this would be to say that the entity has no name, really. A "name" is a label, a pronounceable word or group of sounds, which:

• Is attached an entity through its existence (and beyond).
• Provides a stable label for people to refer to the entity in both past, present, and future contexts.
• Might be changed occasionally, but usually rarely, seldom, and not lightly.

And it may be that this hunk of concrete and steel in Oakland no longer has one of those anymore, thanks to ridiculous shenanigans that the structure's owners have engaged in. However, if we accept that, I'm not sure what we should name the article -- "Large Sports Stadium in Oakland, California" or something, I suppose, and we can talk about that. Not great, but certainly better than the essentially worthless string "O.co Coliseum". Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]