Talk:Brick Community Stadium

Trivia

Wigan Athletic actually drew their first match at the JJB Stadium 0-0 with Morecambe on 1st August 1999. The Manchester United game was on the 4th August.

Wasnt this originally going to be called the Tesco Stadium, with Tesco gaining the naming rights as part of its £20m deal to buy the former Wariors stadium Central park to develop as a supermarket while Wigan Warriors would use the money to build the new stadium. Then Whelan came along and bought the club and made it the JJB stadium with Wigan Athletic in the more dominant leadership role? Its stretching my memory back a decade but anyone have any sources to corraborate this? 86.143.190.127 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Complete nonsense I'm afraid. The stadium was always planned to be Wigan Athletic's, built by Dave Whelan and his company JJB, with a possible sharing arrangement with Orrell RUFC.

When Wigan RL got into financial trouble, they sold Central Park to Tesco and were planning to possibly move to the Reebok. Whelan bought into the RL and brought them to the JJB.

I've found a source for this and will therefore add it into the article. GW(talk) 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It was always going to be a football stadium, and NEVER have I heard of it being called the Tesco Stadium - I think that may have been a joke by someone describing RL's former ground as teh Tesco Stadium, because that's what's there now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.109.69 (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember the reebok sharing idea however the ground sale and planning application to build the new stadium were both done before Whelan bought into the club and it was the £20m tesco money that was used to build the stadium. Whelan merley redirected ownership into his own personal holding company. 86.133.227.49 (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

logistics?

If the stadium is used for soccer and rugby, how is the ground changed to suit both? Anyone know?

For instance, How are the white lines changed? Where do the posts go? How long does it take to switch between events? Could the ground accomodate other sports (hockey, rugby union, ...)?

Lots of grounds in the UK are dual use, eg KC Stadium, Galpharm Stadium. They can blank out the white lines, and replace the posts very easily, porbvably a matter of hours, so you could have rugby on Friday night and soccer Saturday afternnoon. It could accomodate Hockey or union, indeed I think Orrel rugby union might evewn have played there as an experiment (not sure about that). Grinner

I believe that top level hockey has to be played on synthetic pitches, although I think local and lower level hockey can still be played on real grass. However, I would have thought that the condition of pitches primarily used for football or rugby, particularly in terms of the damage caused by studded boots, would render them unsuitable for playing hockey at whatever level. Rje 15:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a dominant partner? ie I believed that as Wigan Warriors were the bigger side at the time it would be Wigan listed before Wigan Athletic on the artivle. Alexsanderson83 16:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

JJB Stadium Outline by df2k2

If anyone is interested I can post this in the article.

File:Wigan outline df2k2.png

First away win by football team at the JJB

For the game against Cambridge City, in which Wigan Athletic were technically the away team, they did NOT use the away dressing room. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.222.41 (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Automated Review

OK, I'm out of ideas and I wouldn't dare have the arrogance to suggest I can copyedit properly. Unless a cross between north English and Asian slang is regarded formal English, that is. Time for an automated review to get suggestions:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GW(talk) 12:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

---

JJB Stadium Owners

The 'Robin Park Stadium' (officially recorded title), is built on land held by the Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (the 'Metro.'). They are the 'freeholders', or landlords, of the property.

As well as owning outright the land it's built on, the Metropolitan Borough Council also own a share of the built stadium.

A 'controlling share' is held by a company which Dave Whelan is the 'controlling shareholder' (chairman).

Dave Whelan does NOT own the stadium. Plain and simple (to anyone with a brain)!

• Please refer to Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council's annual accounts to determine their income from the stadium.

The 'Robin Park Stadium' is not in Wigan, it's in Pemberton. However, it IS in the Wigan 'borough'.

Please refrain from putting rubbish on Wikipedia.

JemmyH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source please. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and not personal opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Stadium Name

If the stadium going to be renamed then shouldn't the article title be changed to the new name? with the current name page changed to a redirect page? The C of E (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The name doesn't take effect until August and so our article shouldn't reflect the name change until it actually takes place. Adambro (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources that state the name has been changed, only that it will be changed. Any wording, until a reliable source is found to state for certain the name has been changed, should reflect that status. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this do?[1] GW(talk) 17:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really - you should have a post-dated source for the name change. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Wigan Warriors moved into the then JJB Stadium in 1999".[2] Continues to refer to the stadium as the DW, implying the stadium's name has changed from JJB to DW. I'd also point out that the websites of the Premier League and Super League, plus the websites of both Wigan Warriors and Wigan Athletic refer to the stadium's name as "DW Stadium". I think it's reasonable to assume the stadium's name has changed, especially when this is backed up with pre-dated sources stating the name was due to change at a specific date, a date which has passed. GW(talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Leeds came to the newlynamed DW Stadium (formerly the JJB)".[3] That was on 28 July. GW(talk) 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Robin Park

Why does 'Robin Park centre' redirect here? It is a separate stadium owned by Wigan Council and used by a number of sports clubs.92.239.88.53 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Probably because the council are the landlords of this gaff and it's official registered title is 'The Robin Park Stadium'. The council own, outright, the land the stadium is built on. The council funded it's build through money obtained from Central Government as 'City Challenge Fund'.

DW Stadium and JJB Stadium are simply sponsors names tagged onto the stadium for a 10 year contract fee. When the sponsor pulls out, the name changes to the new sponsor. If no new sponsor was found, it would become what it's always 'officially' been, the Robin Park Stadium.

AND, it's in Pemberton, not Wigan.

Believe whatever you want if it makes you feel good.

Source of information? Wigan Metropolitan Borough annual accounts.

Jemmy Hanson, Bryn (Ashton in Makerfield)92.239.71.235 (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Stands

Bit confused over the references to the stands. Should it be the South Stand or southern stand? Are they known as South Stand, North Stand?  florrie  02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. It think it would normally be southern, however the official website says "South Stand", and so do the season tickets. It is colloquially known as the "South Stand" amongst fans too. Same goes for North. Before the stands were given special names, so were the West and East Stands. I've edited the table to reflect this. GW(talk) 07:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So when referring to them as a structure, it'll be East Stand (if pre-naming) or South Stand and if talking about the position of the stands, eastern stand, southern stand? Does that make sense? It will just need to be consistent throughout, whichever way you choose. I'll edit the "Structure and facilities" section to how I think it should be and then see what you think.  florrie  11:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You've done it the right way. "South Stand" is the proper name of the stand, whilst "southern" is just an adjective. Cheers for the dates too, I thought references followed the YYYY-MM-DD format given with the Wikipedia Cite tool. GW(talk) 14:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that came out of all the date delinking hoo-ha. At one stage I was told/read I shouldn't use the linked ISO format as it was deprecated (on wp). Since then all the mass delinking has stopped as per arbitration - as I have just read! I don't know how anyone keeps up with all this reading of policy stuff. As far as GA/FA goes, yesterday's featured article uses written date format while today's uses unlinked ISO. Do you want me to change them back if it is your preferred format?  florrie  01:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice if some kind soul just wrote a summary of policy changes and made a bot to post it onto our talk pages. Nah, I prefer your format. I'd have done it that way myself when I was writing the article if I'd known it was allowed. The only thing I can think of is that since that's a British English format, I should add the banner on this talk page. I should do it anyway since I write in that style. GW(talk) 08:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, NONE of the stands are in the 'south'. The stadium has sides facing south west - south east and north west - north east. A corner of the stadium points south. Then again, that's Wiganers for you, they haven't a clue about directions!

Image

Get a new image, one with people actually watching the team playing --Tukogbani (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the one in the History section of the Boston Stand looks pretty full of people watching a game, but it's not like I own the article. You're more than welcome to do so yourself if you feel it would be better. WP:BOLD. GW(talk) 21:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, i was expecting grief there, we would have to decide on the image as having a warriors photo or vise versa may upset the other fans --Tukogbani (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the current lead image is of higher quality than the one further down (even if I do say so myself), but you're welcome to raid my Flickr account to find a more suitable one should you feel the urge. -- Hindleyite (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your images are much better, Hindleyite. However, your license is currently incompatable with Wikipedia's policies on Flickr uploads due to the non-commercial part. If you could change the license, I'd more than happily use this image. GW(talk) 11:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, the image license has been changed. -- Hindleyite (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, and cheers. GW(talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

There are two claims that have been added to the article in the past week, neither of which are verified nor attributed to any source. I have attempted to tag these appropriately, but it keeps being removed in place of weasel words. Repeated reversion of an article between two editors is known as an edit war, and is never allowed under any circumstances. When two editors are warring, as would be the case if the reverting were to continue, then consensus should be sought on its talk page. Failure to resolve difference through this medium will result in third party intervention.

The two claims in question are:

Reference to 'Boston'

The rugby league club were granted the East Stand, which they renamed 'The Boston Stand' in tribute to the Welsh winger Billy Boston, although Wigan Athletic fans jokingly claim the name derives from Boston United whose failure to achieve promotion to the Football League in 1978 led to the inclusion of the Wigan club.

A source has been linked to the claim which confirms Wigan Athletic did indeed take Boston United FC's place in the Football League. This was never in question. What I questioned was whether Wigan Athletic fans really do jokingly refer to 'Boston' in this way. A simple Google search produces not so much as a newspaper article or a blog to support this statement. GW(talk) 22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say if it's not sourced, get rid of it per WP:V. It's not particularly encyclopedic anyway. Nev1 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am unconvinced that this is really encyclopedic anyway, obviously something such as this would have to be sourced if it were to remain. Surely if the fans made a big deal of this there would be some mention of it somewhere. Rje (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry Lyon (fans choice)

As Wigan Athletic had spent many years in the lower leagues it was recognised that most of the players were not known at national level and as the fans' choice, Harry Lyon, had already been honoured at the site of their former home, Springfield Park, the ground's main West Stand was renamed 'The Springfield Stand', in recognition of the club's original base.

Firstly, recognised by whom? Wikipedia demands that all claims be linked to reliable sources. To claim that something has been recognised without actually saying who it has been recognised by implies authority and thus violates this guideline.

Secondly, no source has been linked to the claim that Wigan Athletic fans were given a poll to decide on their player, or that Harry Lyon was voted, or that he was overlooked in favour of Springfield Park because he has already been honoured. Again, a simple Google search produces no results to confirm any of these claims and inferences. GW(talk) 22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right about having a source for the claim of recognition. It would seem odd to me that the club would go against the wishes of the fans on something like this and for there to be no mention of it in a reliable source. The fact that the Springfield Stand is named after the old stadium should remain, but the rest should go if there isn't a source for it. Rje (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)