Talk:Emirates Stadium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Emirates Stadium has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 25, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
March 12, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Football (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the English football task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Arsenal task force (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject London (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Event Venues / Sports  (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of event facilities 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Sports task force.

Emirates cup[edit]

I deleted the Emirates Cup section as it was written extremely badly and it really has nothing to do with the stadium itself. (14:25, 21 August 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapzwans (talkcontribs) 14:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

UEFA Rating[edit]

Seeing as the Emirates has been nominated as one of the stadium in contention to hold the 2011 UEFA Cup final, it is reasonable to assume that it is, at the very least, in fact a 4 star stadium. Hasanclk 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just pure assumption and supposition - until it's quoted in a reliable source it cannot be included. There are another four years before the Final occurs & for certification to take place. Qwghlm 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought it was a 5 star because (from what i've seen) it seems to fulfill all the criteria for one. I guess they went for the UEFA cup final first to see how the neutral European comunity reacted to the stadium then if its positive, go for the Champions league final a few years later The C of E (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashburton Grove vs the Emirates[edit]

according to WP:COMMONNAME, shouldn't this article be named as Ashburton Grove? Stadia named by sponsorship agreements are likely to change name in the future. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 14:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WT:WPF#Stadium names is currently discussing this matter, but in relation to existing stadiums that have been renamed. Though I don't like the sponsored name, my opinion is that in this case, as the stadium has operated under the name since its opening then it should be under this name. If the name changes in 2014 then the article can be moved then. Googling for Emirates Stadium v. Ashburton Grove makes it clear that the former is the much more common name for it. Qwghlm 15:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I take your points, there are numerous occasions where wiki forgoes "common" names in favour of "official" names. A couple I can think of off the top of my head are West Ham United's Boleyn Ground, formerly known as Upton Park . A quick google search will show Upton Park - 2 million sites, and photos, Boleyn Ground - only 900,000 sites, the first of which is wiki, and one says "Boleyn Ground (Upton Park)". I can see why this is a different case, as Ashburton Grove has never had an official non-sponsorship name, but the point stands. I shall take some of this to the discussion which you have highlighted. L.J.Skinnerwotlfæfæftæætægæflfæfææffåf|I did 18:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
However, Emirates Stadium is also the official name of the stadium as well as the most common name, so by using Boleyn Ground (or indeed Arsenal Stadium, another stadium nicknamed by the area it stood in) as a precedent this article should stay where it is. Requesting a move would not be unreasonable, but I still think the article is best where it currently is. Qwghlm 19:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Stadium - fans and prices[edit]

Arsenal's more hardcore fans (through a group known as RedAction) were (unusually for British football) involved in the development of the stadium in that they worked with the club to select an area in which the fans who tended to lead the chanting and singing would be able to sit (or in fact mostly stand) together. The club recognised RedAction two years before the opening of the new stadium (again an unusual move for what was a non-official grouping) and a location (directly opposite the away fans section) was agreed.

The move was significant in that Highbury had been known among supporters as being a particularly quiet stadium, and the focussing of the noisiest supporters in one section undoubtedly helped increase the volume of the support.

By autumn 2007 the effect of RedAction was seen to be expanding across the lower tier behind the goal at the northern end, as their scarf waving activities caught on among other supporters.

Ticket prices and attendance

Although Arsenal prices are recognised as among the highest in club football anywhere in the world, Arsenal have sought to keep prices down. In particular, Carling Cup matches, in which the manager normally selects a reserve team, and even includes some youth players on occasion, are normally priced at a much lower level than EPL games.

Despite the fact that lesser known players turn out for such games Carling Cup matches at the Emirates are sold out as quickly as other matches. Indeed such is the popularity of the stadium that in 2006 a youth cup match attracted a record 32,000 to the stadium.

All very interesting, but what is your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Emirates Stadium Capacity[edit]

Please note that the capacity of the Emirates Stadium's capacity has been officially changed from 60,432 to 60,355. Please see the Chairman's report in Arsenal plc's financial report of May 2007 and the Official Matchday Programme of Arsenal v Bolton Wanderers dated 20th October 2007, in the Q & A section, page 59. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Away fan capacity[edit]

I suspect this has been tampered with at some point, can someone who edits article this regularly fix it? -- (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


One for Qwghlm I think but [1] says there is some fancy method available for assisting with grass growth since the stadium's architecture doesn't allow sunlight to reach all of the pitch during winter. Know any more about it? (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, google gives info from Super surface at Emirates Gunners pitch perfect Arsenal leading light (by the manufacturers) and Arsenal’s Paul Burgess uses technology to put grounds management in the spotlight. (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Premier League Handbook 2009/10 [2] Emirates pitch size is 105m by 68m. This figure is registered at the start of the season and can not be changed during the season. Furthermore, UEFA regulations require that size where construction permits. (Varmenni (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

Record Attendance[edit]

Does anyone have any objection to a section showing the progressive record attendance? Goonerak (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Is there any capacity for expansion of the ground?. With a lot of new stadiums being built around Europe, especially in England, the size of Emirates will lose it's advantage over smaller grounds. Plus, the club comfortable draw 60,000 a game, and could probably host closed to 100,000. Was this envisioned when the stadium was built, otherwise Arsenal might outgrow their new home fairly quickly.

There is no potential to increase the height of the stadium as this has been restricted by the local planning authority. There has been talk of building downwards - how feasible this is I couldn't say. They could reduce the width of the seats as they are very spacious for an average person.--[[User:Goonerak|

Should this be mentioned in the articles, most other stadium articles have a section about future developments and expansion, and it might be an idea to add something about the difficulties and unlikeness of this happening at the Emirates. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The question of capacity isn't an issue of getting narrower seats or of demand, but getting people into and out of the area - I have no sources for this, but obvious as it's a nightmare after a game, so until the tubes in the area under goes a major upgrade, it ain't gonna happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always suspected it might be something to do with transport. The railways around there aren't so bad, as football grounds go, but I doubt it would be fun trying to disperse 100,000 with the current stations. I'll try and find a source for this, as it seems worth of brief inclusion in the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have included a section on this in the article. I go over safe-standing, expansion methods and current regulations. Currently, the stadium is comfortably under the local architecture height limit. It is the local authority capacity limitations at Holloway Road Tube Station and Arsenal Tube Station that limit attendance. I have 'Arsenal Legend's tour' guide, Perry Groves as a source for this though I do not have anything in writing to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


I think that fact that says that every Premier League match has been a sellout should be removed because its not true.

The best example I can use that can prove why its false is because the game today (Blackburn) was NOT a sellout because (according to Arsenal's website) tickets were still on sale on the day of the match so that makes this "fact" a falsehood The C of E (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


There's some pretty major stuff happening that really should be included especially the players surrounding the stadium and Armory Square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

UEFA Stadium Ranking[edit]

Does anyone know what the UEFA ranking of this stadium is. They recently changed their ranking system. Wembley is a category 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakeyjamie (talkcontribs) 11:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela ban![edit]

Well, well, well it looks like Arsenal have banned the vuvuzela from the Emirates (Thank the Lord!) Should this great news be included in the article? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Update picture[edit]

I do get the feeling that to keep this article up to date, we need a new picture in the opening box of the stadium including all the murals they've put around the outside. Can someone do this The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emirates Stadium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • No dab.[3]
  • A few dead links.[4]
  • Ran the dash script to clean those up.
  • Multiple uses of currently. This may be redundant and not precise enough. Not terrible but wanted to mention it. WP:DATED
  • Lead does does not function as proper summary of the article. More info is needed and it will more than likely need to be split into multiple paragraphs. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." - WP:LEAD
  • No non-breaking spaces -   between numbers and their units of measurement. This needs to be addressed
  • Stadium section
    • Consider renaming this to "Layout", "Design", or something similar.
    • I like the first paragraph naming the organizations behind its design and construction. The detail on the seating sections is also good.
    • 105 × 68 metres should have a conversion. Multiple instances throughout. MOS:CONVERSIONS
    • The paragraph starting "The upper tier is contoured to leave open space in the corners of the ground..." is sourceless.
    • VAT might need to be spelt out.
  • Name
  • History
    • I personally am not a fan of the structure of this section with its subsections. That is purely my own preference, though.
    • The "The need for a new stadium" section is short on refs. Are those in the following paragraphs? Same with the section "Ashburton Grove chosen"
    • "The club has announced that all of the hospitality boxes have been taken," needs to have its tense updated
    • The construction subsection needs more refs it looks like.
    • The "Milestones" subsection has a few issues.
      • Citation needed tag
      • Some milestones without refs
      • Would this be better laid out in prose instead of in a list form? I could see the usefulness for a list but not sure. I think that th "'Arsenalisation'" subsection a couple down would most certainly be better as prose. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)#Lists versus prose
  • The "Pitch" section is very short. This is an important aspect of any stadium and more info should be available in sources.
  • The "Other uses" section would be better in more than one paragraph.
  • The "Attendances" section might be better wrapped into the history section or even milestones. I do like the idea of such info being presented though. Some editors might say that it borders on indiscriminate listing but I would disagree.
  • Nice work making sure that financial stuff is in. It might be better moved up since it flows from design and similar issues to games and then back to information that is not event related.
  • "Access" or "Transportation" is common in the better stadium articles. Nice work.
    • "£7.6 million" is used but an abbreviation was used in a previous section.
  • Refs
    • There might be an over use of primary sources. I would not fail based on this but could see it hitting resistance from other editors.
    • Numerous MoS concerns:
      • Make sure that all of the dates are in the same format. Example: #2..."February 16, 2008. Retrieved 19 December 2007."
      • Make sure that italicization is done properly and consistently. Example: #3..."" vs. #10:...""
      • Several bare URLs.
      • Other random ones: "may" not capped for 17, The Gaurdian bolded for 34, no info for 46 and so on.
  • There are some good images. Ed g2s are great. Looks like all licensing checks out. Not sure if "Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010." is applicable for the map but look into it.[5]

I am considering failing this since I believe that the concerns cannot be addressed in a sufficiently short amount of time. However, I will keep this open for a few days. There are some great aspects of this article with some good info, images, and possibly a base for an easy renommination if it fails at this time. I need to stress that although I think this is likely to fail a this time, I did enjoy reading the article and think you have done some awesome work.


(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

  • Fail. The prose is good enough for the most part when it comes to grammar. I am less strict on this but a review at FA would run into some roadblocks. The "Other uses" section is too choppy. The general section layout is too random and does not flow easily enough.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

  • Fail. Multiple issues raised above. Along with more mundane issues, the lists vs prose issue is a highlight.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

  • Fail

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and

  • Fail. Not based on contentious info but simply on not enough sources. The overuse of a the primary source is also a possible concern.

(c) it contains no original research.

  • Pass(?). I believe the info not sourced is available in sources somewhere but the editors failed to provide sources.

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and

  • Fail due to the short pitch section.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

  • Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

  • Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]

  • Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

  • Pass

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • Pass
Follow up: Although there are some good aspects of the article, I cannot pass it at this time. Significant amount of work still needed. Please feel free to shot me a message if you want to renominate it and I will gladly review it again. Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Location is Highbury, not Holloway[edit]

Refer to discussion under Arsenal F.C. - its generally agreed that the location is Highbury N5. (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Arsenal Stadium.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Arsenal Stadium.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Arsenal Stadium.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emirates Stadium/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 14:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I will review the article. Arsenikk (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • "Arsenal as early as in 1997" should be more accurate and less fluffy, e.g. "Arsenal started in 1997..." The issue here is to remove "as early as" (fixed)
  • In general, the prose uses too few commas, leaving the reader gasping for breath at the end of the sentence. (fixed)
  • A similar issue is with the endashes; if a fragment is isolated with an endash, it needs one on each side. (fixed) (fixed)
  • "...that 70% of poll of Islington residents..." sounds awkward. (fixed)
  • There are quite a number of hyphens lacking when numbers are used as adjectives (e.g. "7.1-year bond"). Half the time this is done correctly, though. (fixed)
  • Abbreviating to the "£260m" format is frowned upon in the MOS: just spell out a million. (fixed)
  • Incorporate a link to naming rights somewhere appropriate in the naming paragraph. (fixed)
  • "Construction consultants Arcadis and engineering firm Buro Happold were also involved in the process." is not referenced.
  • Linking 'bridge' and 'railway' is a bit over the top when not directly relevant for the article. (fixed)
  • Include a suitable link to club seating in the section about seating. (fixed, attached link to Club Level)
  • There just isn't room for four images in the "Structure and facilities" section. Either remove or relocate one of them.
  • The Brazil matches need proper referencing, not just a link to a report.(fixed, not sure what was meant here but I've put BBC sources to show that they were held at the stadium.)
  • "to date" is not an acceptable formulation, as it is impossible for the reader to know when "date" is. Remember, some Wikipedia articles are used outside our site or may be published in print form and thus not updated. Instead, write "as of 2012" or similar, or just leave the phrase out.(fixed)
  • The driving advice is not referenced, similarly with part of the ticketing information. Also, it seems a bit odd that ticket sales information is included under transport. (fixed, but reflinks required)
  • As there are ample images of the stadium both in the article and on Commons, providing an external link to Flickr unnecessary. (fixed)
  • The Spurling ref lacks page numbers.
  • There is lots of juicy information in the Design-Build external link which would be appropriate to include, particularly about the design and architecture.
  • Symbol question.svg Is it really nessecary to include this in order to make it a GA? Surely since most of the issues have been ironed out, then it should be promoted to GA. This can be added later but to me, doesn't seem integral to the page becoming a Good Article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem including bits from the website, it just means it can't be used as a 'external link' because the article has been referenced. – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The link contains much information which I expect in the article. If such information is available and not included, it violates 3a. Also, links such as this are much preferred as references rather than external links (generally speaking, it is a goal to minimize external links). Given the existence of such links, a much longer "Structure and facilities" section could be written. Arsenikk (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Righto, have removed the external link, incorporated it as a reference and beefed up the structure section. Lemme know what you think. – Lemonade51 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall, well-written (save the underpunctuation) and most interesting, but there are a few comments which need to be seen to. Placing on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations with a good article (and my apologies for the late replies). Arsenikk (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Emirates vs. Ashburton Grove again[edit]

If the title of this article is Emirates Stadium, it doesn't seem to make sense for the opening line to be "Ashburton Grove, known for sponsorship reasons as the Emirates Stadium". The reverse ("Emirates Stadium, called Ashburton Grove by some supporters") would seem more logical. And let's be honest here - the name "Emirates Stadium" is more widely used in the footballing world for this stadium. The current intro makes it sound like Ashburton Grove is the common name for the stadium, which may have been the case in 2006 but is not now. (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. If some supporters prefer the name "Ashburton Grove," that's their choice but it is not the official name of the stadium. I'm changing it. (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Reversed, see WP:LEAD. It's formal name is 'Ashburton Grove' because that is the geographical name of the site, and therefore is appropriate to lead the article. By your logic, North Korea should not start off as: "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea..." -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. Emirates paid for the official naming rights. The fact that some fans won't accept the sponsorship is no reason for this encyclopedia, which is supposed to take a neutral point of view, to take their lead. (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Emirates Stadium is the official name, and references to the use of the informal Ashburton Grove should be removed. Palaeozoic99 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that Emirates Stadium should be used, I don't think reference to Ashburton Grove should be removed as it is an alternative name used unofficially same as Brisbane Cricket Ground is also known as The Gabba. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I can understand having "Ashburton Grove" in there as an alternate name, but we should not open the article with it. (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
This edit is wrong. Look at the pages of other stadiums with sponsorship names. Etihad stadium in Melbourne is universally known as Etihad stadium however the wikipedia article introduces it as "Docklands stadium, known as Etihad stadium for sponsorship reasons". This should be changed back. In fact I'm in favour of calling the entire page Ashburton Grove. If Higbury's page is titled Arsenal Stadium then surely this should be titled Ashburton Grove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
If what you say is true, then that page is in error, not this one. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Peoples' dislike of corporate sponsorship should not be a factor in what we title an article. Emirates Stadium is this facility's legal name, just as Arsenal Stadium was the legal name of its predecessor. Alternate names can be mentioned in the article at some point. (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bdesignbuild-network\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ticket Prices[edit]

We should add somewhere that the ticket prices are notoriously high at the Emirates, and were recently (not sure if still are) the highest priced tickets in the league. Let me know if you think it should be added in, and we can make some changes. [6] Adamh4 (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)