Talk:Old Trafford

Removed deleted image(s)

Just a note to say that I have removed some [or an] image[s] from the page beacuse they were speediable under either:

• Category:Images with no fair use rationale
• Category:Images with no copyright tag
• Category:Images with no source

Or similar category. Iolakana|^(talk) 18:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Name

Surely this should be Old trafford Stadium, as it is a stadium, and not a football, also it is not exclusivley used for football matches. I propose a move to Old Trafford (stadium). Anyone have any points? Philc _T^E_C^I 22:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well given that it isn't actually called Old Trafford Stadium, but rather just "Old Trafford" I think the current article title is appropriate. Or a better option if it were to be moved would be simply to "Old Trafford" without the football qualifier as there is nothing else on Earth named "Old Trafford". Gateman1997 19:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt make myself clear to my intentions, I meant Old Trafford (stadium) as opposed to Old trafford (football) given the multi use nature of the stadium, but yes, I would agree with a move to Old trafford aswell. Its just Old Trafford (football) to me atleast, has the implication that the thing is a football, which is odd. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've set Old Trafford to redirect to this page. I'd advise keeping the title as it is, however, since it's useful to distinguish the football ground from the cricket ground. Also, any name change would mean having to change all the links to this page. --Daduzi ^talk 07:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No because when you move a page, the previous page automatically becomes a redirect. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right, ignore my earlier point then. Still, all that being said the current situation seems acceptable. If this article is renamed to Old Trafford because Old Trafford (football) seems weird what do we do with Old Trafford (cricket)? --Daduzi ^talk 16:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, now that the situation is explained, the only way to do it to have Old Trafford (Football Stadium) and Old Trafford (Cricket Ground), but that just seems to perdantic to be worth the bother. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Both the cricket ground and the football ground are named after the area of Greater Manchester they are situated in, Old Trafford. I think that the name without a further qualifier should point to the area, with 'Old Trafford (football ground) ' and 'Old Trafford (cricket ground)' for the sporting venues. Dancarney (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The most common usage of "Old Trafford" worldwide is obviously the football ground. The cricket ground is probably of secondary importance, followed by the locality, which I believe should be located at Old Trafford, Greater Manchester. – PeeJay 09:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

I've been looking at articles on all the other UEFA 5-Star european stadiums and they have pictures of the stadiums whereas this article just has the Man Utd emblem, shouldn't there be an image of the stadium instead?Mr. mister 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeh I thought that too, so I fished one out of the edit history. Som anonymous IP felt otherwise and had put the emblem there. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah its much better now, thanks Mr. mister 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

propose move

I can't help feeling that "Old Trafford (football)" is a most unsatisfactory name for this article. How would people feel if I proposed moving this page to "Old Trafford Stadium", with a view to moving the other Old Trafford to "Old Trafford Cricket Ground"? DJR (T) 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but it'll probably be best to check over at Old Trafford (cricket) as well. --Daduzi ^talk 20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Object - these are established, descriptive names and I see no reason to rename them. In particular, the cricket stadium is as much a stadium as is the football ground. There is no such address as Old Trafford Cricket Ground. TerriersFan 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Old Trafford id BIG AND BEAUTIFUL AND BOLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.136.142 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 March 2007

Extension to 91,000

I can find no evidence on the internet of such a proposal and considering the proximity of a railway line beind the South Stand I'd imagine such a move just isn't possible. I suggest this part be removed. Niall123 17:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I recall seeing something about this on some page somewhere, but it was very unofficial and had no cited source. I agree about removing the suggesting section - I am going to be bold and do it myself now. DJR (T) 20:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir Alex Ferguson and David Gill have both mentioned in past interviews the desire to increase the capacity of the South stand, and taking Old Traffords capacity to over 90 000. I think it deserves a mention. Paulscholesscoresgoals 18.33 2 January 2007

I remember reading recently in a Man U newsletter that Ferguson would like to see the stadium increased to 100,000. I'll add this is in when/if I can find the source. Krea 01:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

it was mentioned by the tour guide last time i went on the tour, they would need to build a huge tunnel like structure over the railway and buy the properties on the other side of the railway so they have space for evacuations and parking for an extra few thousand people. its not completly unrealistic but i'd expect 10-15 years before any work is done to acheive this. this work would bring the capacity above 90000, then you can talk about making it all a 3 tier bowl. again no sources --Numberwang 23:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stadium Attendance (Premier League)

2006-2007:
Average: 75,766 (includes 12 games thus far)
Total: 909,189 (includes 12 games thus far)

2005-2006:
Average: 68,767 (Stadium Capacity increased prior to the last 6 games)
Total: 1,306,568 (Only Premier league team this season to surpass the 1 million total mark)
--Df2k2 16:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Never done this editing thing before. The page says that Old Trafford will soon be joined by Wembley as the only 5 star UEFA stadium in England but the Wikipedia UEFA stadium page says Old Trafford, Wembley and The Emirates are all on UEFA's 5 star list. Joe 195.137.105.173 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrected it. Ta Whilding87 16:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

corrected it again because it says "one of only two..." as far as i am aware and the article on uefa rated stadia goes wembeley has not yet been granted such status so the article should read "the only 5-star ....."--Numberwang 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Groundsman

The head groundsman at Old Trafford is Tony Sinclair. I wasn't sure how to get this info into the article without it seeming a bit out of place, but it's there for you to use if you want. - PeeJay 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Old old trafford.jpg

Image:Old old trafford.jpg 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 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 05:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Old old trafford.jpg

Image:Old old trafford.jpg 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 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 23:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newoldtrafford.jpg

Image:Newoldtrafford.jpg 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 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 10:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Playground of Philanthropists??

I was sure George Best referred to the ground as The Playground of Philanthropists?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.139.199 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such statement being attributed to George Best. – PeeJay 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was mentioned in The Good, The Bad and The Bubbly--81.106.139.199 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is? – PeeJay 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

One of George Bests autobiographies--81.106.139.199 (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said in one of my edit summaries, that nickname has never been used in common parlance, and therefore it shouldn't be included in the article. – PeeJay 13:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

• My first concerns about the article after a quick glimpse is the fact that all the images appear to be one the right hand side of the article, perhaps it would be worth moving a couple over to the left to make it look a little more visually appealing?
  • Probably a good idea. I'll see about shuffling a few of the images around a bit.
• "and is the only UEFA 5-star rated facility in England." - are we excluding Wembley from this statement as well?
  • According to this PDF document I found at Template talk:UEFA5Star, Old Trafford was England's only five-star stadium as of 31 May 2007. I don't know if any inspections have taken place that would have seen Wembley or the Emirates Stadium promoted to five-star status, but this is the best source we have to go on at the minute.
• "United's first game back at Old Trafford was played on 24 August 1949, as 41,748 spectators witnessed a 3–0 victory over Bolton Wanderers" - Perhaps this just me and my Cheshire self, but aren't Manchester and Bolton relatively close? If so, wouldn't it be worth saying that they are a "local club" in the statement?
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
• "The last international to be held at Old Trafford was England's 1–0 loss to Spain on 7 February 2007." - wouldn't be worth saying the attendance and who scored in that game?
  • I'll see about adding the attendance, but I'm not sure that the scorer is relevant.
• "Outside of football, several concerts have been played at Old Trafford, with such big names as Bruce Springsteen, Status Quo, Rod Stewart and Simply Red playing." Reviewer's opinion only! No Genesis?! :-P
  • Haha, I wasn't actually aware that Genesis had ever played at Old Trafford :D – PeeJay 11:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• As a railfan, one could point out that British Rail Class 323s run the service at Old Trafford at the moment (although if your interested they'll be cascaded to London Midland by the next decade and North will have new EMUs to replace them.)
  • Not sure that the type of train used on the service is relevant, but it's a good piece of info to have on the talk page for the future.

Anyway, because I've found a lack of any reason to oppose the article, I've decided to pass and list this article as a GA. Although I'd like it if you went over my issues (however minor they are) and if your trying to get this article up to FA, I would suggest finding some hardback references (ie, books, magazines, journals, etc) for a more reliable reference because the article have a more web references than hardback which is probably what users at FAC level will be looking at straight away, also as a word of warning - try not to use the same book for the entire article like I did with Tom Pryce, although that got to FA because there is basically nothing on the guy other than one book. Anyway, give me a buzz if you wish for me a clarify a a point or two. Also, may I invite you to review this Ga-review as well - see my signature. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 10:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for reviewing the article, Skully. I have a hardback book about Old Trafford (both of them!), I just need to find the time to read through it and find any facts I'm missing out on :-D The only trouble is that the book I have is literally the only book about Old Trafford itself. Most other literature comes in the form of a couple of pages in a book about Manchester United. Anyway, cheers again for the review. Now I can focus on getting other Man Utd articles to the same standard in order to create a featured topic! – PeeJay 11:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Largest capacity of any English football stadium?

Wembley Stadium has a capacity of 90,000 - so surely Old Trafford is not the largest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.162.165 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your idiocy astounds me. The sentence reads "Behind Wembley Stadium, Old Trafford has the largest capacity of any English football stadium at just over 76,000". Go figure. – PeeJay 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of politeness over a small reading error astounds me, but I'll forgive you based on the assumption you're probably a fat chav and it's not your fault your parents didn't teach you manners! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.162.165 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption would be incorrect, but I'll forgive you because I find the fact that you're making a big deal about this amusing. – PeeJay 14:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my rudeness. It was uncalled for. Nevertheless, you should read the entire sentence next time. No hard feelings? – PeeJay 15:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now reworded the sentence in an attempt to avoid further ambiguity. – PeeJay 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They've put an old version of this article on the Wikipedia front page saying wrongly that Old Trafford has the biggest capacity. They won't allow editing of the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? The main page says "second-largest", not "largest". – PeeJay 17:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC comments

• An alternative ref for the 11,685 average is James, Gary (2008). Manchester – A Football History. Halifax: James Ward. p. 154. ISBN 978-0-9558127-0-5. I don't think putting that the same season also had the lowest aggregate crowd is necessary. It would have been worth pointing out if it was a different season, but as the text itself says it is unsurprising, it perhaps shouldn't be included.
• The date of the first floodlit match could be included. it might also be worth pointing out that United couldn't play European home ties at Old Trafford until they were installed.
• The quirky tale of the Stockport match at Old Trafford with an official attendance of 13 paying spectators could be mentioned.
• No article on a British football ground can be considered truly comprehensive without at least one reference to a Simon Inglis book, so in that spirit, according to Inglis, Simon (1987). The Football Grounds of Great Britain (2nd ed.). London: Collins Willow. p. 60. ISBN 0-00-218249-1. the museum was "the first of its kind at any club ground in the world". Oldelpaso (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done all of those things now. Cheers for the help matey. It's a shame you're a blue, cos it would be really useful to have your help on more Red-related articles :-D – PeeJay 14:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, once I've finished reading a book about him I might work on Billy Meredith, and there's always Manchester derby. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, fair dos. If you need any help with either of those, particularly from a United perspective, give me a shout. Btw, don't forget to lend your support to this article's FAC nomination ;-) – PeeJay 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

FA Status

Good job and well done to all that have contributed in the Old Trafford article. On 13 September 2008, it was chosen as a Featured Article. Cheers, H2H (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Technical areas

Do we know why one (the one to the left, from the main television gantry viewpoint) technical area overlaps into the other half of the pitch? Seems a tad unfair to me. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a clue, but that's the away team's technical area, so if it favours anyone, it favours the away team. – PeeJay 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Old Trafford the cricket ground

Shouldn't the alternate link detail that ground out of this page.Stephen Hayes (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand a word of that. Can you please explain your request in more simple terms? – PeeJay 17:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Stephen means that the hatnote at the top of the article should link to Old Trafford cricket ground (although I'm not sure). I don't see much of a problem with linking to a dab page as the cricket ground can be reached from there. Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording for the other uses section

Hopefully that should do the trick.Huey Newton and the News (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the current wording is inappropriate before making any more changes. You clearly have a vested interest in rugby league, hence your keenness to make it overly obvious that league has been played at Old Trafford more than union has. To that end, I don't see what the problem with the current wording is. – PeeJay 09:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Truth only reveals itself when one gives up all preconceived ideas." Hopefully the current revision should be to your liking.Huey Newton and the News (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

L comes before U.Huey Newton and the News (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean the version that had two phrases that each rendered the other redundant? What's the point? Also, what does L coming before U have to do with anything? – PeeJay 09:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we obtain a third opinion on this issue before making any further changes. The article should remain as it was until that time. – PeeJay 10:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the above conversation but i thought just as a side note to the other uses section, it is known for people to have their ashes scattered there if its worth a mention? S-m-r-t (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Like who? I never heard of that happening. – PeeJay 15:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Lyon Photograph

Someone removed an image detailing another use besides association football, have fixed the issue. Huey Newton and the News 10:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huey Newton and the News (talk • contribs)

The picture was pointless. The stadium's use as a rugby league venue is shown perfectly well in the other photo in the section; the photo of Jamie Lyon could have easily been taken at any stadium and therefore added nothing of use to the article. – PeeJay 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. I fail to see any justification for removing the picture. I am open to hearing any worthy rationale by which the image should be removed. Huey Newton and the News 07:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huey Newton and the News (talk • contribs)

It's a picture of a man about to kick a ball. It's not a picture of the stadium or its surrounding area. If you insist on adding it again, at least come up with a decent reason why it needs to be there. – PeeJay 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got to agree with PeeJay on this one. The picture above where it was is fine, as it shows much of the stadium ... which is what the article is about. The other picture is pretty poor quality as it is, and doesn't show a whole lot of anything. – Latics (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Shows a full stand, and in-game action from the sport that could very reasonably call Old Trafford it's national stadium. Huey Newton and the News 07:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huey Newton and the News (talk • contribs)

Unless you know intimately what Old Trafford looks like on the inside, that stand could be from any stadium in the country. I know it's from Old Trafford, but the image definitely doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of Old Trafford. What we really need in that section is a picture of Old Trafford being used for a concert or a boxing match. – PeeJay 13:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you on the issue of furthering the other uses cause; you could go away and search for a free use image that would be fine to use and fit the bill in terms of the other sporting events that have taken place at OT. Huey Newton and the News 20:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huey Newton and the News (talk • contribs)

You still haven't given a good reason why the Jamie Lyon image should be included. Keep adding it and I'll report you for disruptive behaviour. – PeeJay 21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've written in English; the only language I know. Keep removing it and I'll report you for disruptive behaviour. Huey Newton and the News 07:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huey Newton and the News (talk • contribs)

Being literate is not a good reason to keep an image. Consider yourself reported. – PeeJay 11:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Although it's a good image I don't see the significance. Personally, if we have to have a rugby shot on there (and I think we should) then I'd prefer to see goalposts, pitch markings, scrums, aerial shots - something that shows the stadium in rugby mode. This image doesn't show the full stand, only a section of it. It could also be seen as a 'soccer' free kick to any casual reader of the site. There must be stronger Old Trafford images of rugby. I also disagree about the national stadium line - Rugby League has used lots of stadia over the years with Wembley, Odsal, Maine Road and others all staging very significant RL games.

I don't like it when people add, remove, add, remove text/images etc. so I won't be reversing anyone's article addition/removal, and believe other voices should be heard before anyone else alters the article. A simple reveral is not always the right way to resolve these issues. BillyMeredithShorts (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Because this is a featured article, we expect the highest standards of text and images. (It is common that FA candidate articles will have images criticized because of redundancy or substandard quality.) In this case, the text about the Super League Rugby is already supplemented by a photo, therefore the second image File:Photo-0275.jpg is redundant. Also, the second image is substandard -- being blurry and poorly composed. It doesn't fit an FA article -- and isn't required here.

I want to point out that alternate text is now a requirement for all FA article images. The photos in this article need to have that added. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

I edited to remove the suggested speedy deletion. This is a good article on an important subject. It's certainly long enough and significant enough to remain. It also a featured article. I suspect that the suggestion that it be deleted has something to do with it appearing on the front page today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.242.83 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Run-on sentence

I know this is a featured article and all, but this sentence could use a bit of work:

The 1970s saw the dramatic rise of football hooliganism in Britain, and when Manchester United were relegated to the Second Division in 1974, the club's hooligan firm – the Red Army – gained notoriety, a knife-throwing incident in 1971 forcing the club to erect the country's first perimeter fence, restricting fans from the Old Trafford pitch.

In one sentence it covers the rise of hooliganism, Man U's move to Second Division, the hooligan firm, a knife-throwing incident, the construction of the perimeter fence, and said fence's impact on the fans. It talks about "the 1970s", starting with 1974 and progressing to 1971. Did the Red Army gain notoriety because Manchester was relegated to the Second Division in 1974, or because of the knife-throwing incident in 1971? Likely it should be split into at least two sentences. I don't know much about football so I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I. Suggestions? Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that is a terrible sentence. I'll see about fixing that. – PeeJay 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better. Thanks! Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wartime Bombing Section

Where have all the references gone??? Someone has clearly copied the text from the actual page and then pasted it in the editor over the top of the original text... Would be a shame to lose the references... Ck786 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

They didn't post it over the top, they posted it right in the middle. Anyway, I've reverted back to the last good version. – PeeJay 22:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

First paragraph: 'With space for ......... spectators' - is this how many seats there are, or is this in fact how much space there is for spectators? If it's the former, I suggest this is re-worded because there is of course plenty of space that spectators could stand (in the aisles, the benches, the boxes, for example). Tomlock01 (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, legally they can't actually put spectators anywhere other than in seats, but I see where you're coming from. To be honest, the club isn't very transparent about how the seating is divided up; it would be very useful if they would tell us how many seats are in each stand/tier/row/executive box, but they never have done. All I know is that the current official capacity is 75,957. – PeeJay 15:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My source ("Old Trafford - Theatre of Dreams (1996), Iain McCartney") tells me that in 1996, the capacity was 56,467, with 26,084 in the North Stand, 10,183 in the South Stand, 9,802 in the East Stand and 10,398 in the West Stand, plus 1,183 in executive boxes, but this has obviously increased since then. Unfortunately, the updated edition of that book, which was released earlier this year, does not give a breakdown of the capacity for this season. Bugger. – PeeJay 15:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea I understand, it was just me being pedantic really. I'm sure everyone knows what is meant by saying 'space for spectators', its just there are many more spectators at a game than those who have bought tickets what with all the stewards, ball boys, journalists, photographers etc. I wonder why the club don't say how many seats are in each tier etc.!? I can't think of any reason not to say so. Anyway, to be frank I can't think of any ways to erase this problem, as even saying 'so many seats' would be inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup?

The addition of the information about the Intercontinental Cup is not appropriate for the lead section of this article. First of all, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, and since the 1968 Intercontinental Cup is not mentioned in the rest of the article, it should not be mentioned in the lead. Second, this article is about Old Trafford, not Manchester United, and the information about the 1968 Intercontinental Cup would be better suited to the History of Manchester United F.C. (1945–1969) article (that's not to say I would endorse its inclusion there either). Finally, it's clear that User:Jamen Somasu has a vendetta against UEFA and is only adding the info to point out how "barbaric" people from Europe are. I mean, my goodness, throwing food at away players to stop their lap of honour? How much more neanderthal can you get?! – PeeJay 19:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are done with this "the whole world is against me" (pathetic to be honest), then I will mention that it is an important fact: Manchester United has won EVERY trophy it ever disputed in their house, be it a friendly competition, official, whatever...except for that one time and it still holds true till this day. That is a very notable fact. Not everyone can say they played Manchester United in Old Trafford and come away with a title, even with all the monkeys, hooligans and neanderthals throwing everything from coins to food to prevent a lap of honor. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Boca Juniors won the Vodafone Cup in 2004. Anyway, your POV is absolutely evident with that last comment. – PeeJay 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but that was a friendly competition (first time I ever heard of it and Boca doesn't even have it on their official website) among a few teams and it was never finished due to the weather. Manchester and Boca didn't even play each other. By the way, Estudiantes won the title WHILE playing Manchester. No one else has ever done that. Not to mention, there is ABSOLUTELY no sources stating that this competition even existed. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You just said that Manchester United has won every competition held at Old Trafford, including friendly competitions, and I proved you wrong. Get over yourself, you c***. – PeeJay 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Really now...do you have to stoop to typos to get a little? Calm down, don't let your envy get in the way of your thinking. Can you even prove this competition existed? Because I am looking through 6 search engines and I am getting nothing. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How about these photos from the Vodafone Cup? There are even reports of the matches that did take place in the Manchester United magazine from the time and the Manchester United Official Members' Yearbook 2004/05. – PeeJay 20:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job. You just proved that the cup DID in fact happen. However, is there anything pointing out that a team, other than Manchester, won it because, I would think personally, that is the important thing. Is there any sources pointing out the result of the tournament? Because I am looking at that site and it has nothing. Hapy hunting! Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I told you, Boca Juniors won it. In fact, the official yearbook clearly states "Boca Juniors won the inaugural Vodafone Cup[...] They were awarded the trophy, courtesy of a point system that gave three for a win and one for every goal. United would have needed to have trounced Urawa 6-1 to have lifted the trophy." – PeeJay 20:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly now. As I see it the information is relevant to the stadium, but not important enough for the lead section. So how about we just mention it somewhere else in the article? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm down with that. If you would like, I will save you the honors of doing it yourself, Alzarian16, seeing that PeeJay is resorting to personal attacks and childish tandrums (Get over yourself, you c***.}. Come on now...if that would have been me, I would have been booted out of here fast. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've moved into the History section. One thing though: the bits about it being the only trophy not won by United at the ground and the fans throwing stuff onto the pitch didn't appear to be mentioned in the source that was linked to, unless there's something badly wrong with my translator software. So I removed them under WP:V until we can find verify them. Hope this is OK. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is. Besides the fact that I have the match on my comp, it is clearly in the article on the 4th paragraph.

“ Who were the "animals" in the end? We could hardly run the lap of honor after the final whistle consecrated the 1-1 scoreline. The coins being thrown didn't allow us to continue. At least, the British pound has always been, then and now, stronger than the Argentine peso. A while later, in the hotel, a group of men met with Zubeldía. Lonely during the night, Bilardo came to him and said, "You realize, Osvaldo, that we are at the top?". Bilardo finished: "You realize, Osvaldo, that we are alone on the top?". Dr. Madero tells this in the journal "Animals", precisely a pincharata publishement. ”

Believe me when I say...what happened that night in England is widely understated here. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Moot point by now, but how many times have Manchester United won a competition at Old Trafford? League Cups, FA Cups, charity shields, Champions Leagues, UEFA Cup Winners' Cups are all held on neutral venues. I might be wrong, but to say that Manchester United losing a title at Old Trafford makes it notable is wide of the mark, because they rarely get chance to win them either. 91.106.111.31 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell yeah it is notable! That says a lot about the type of home-advantage that Manchester enjoys. That team won everything they disputed there, even BS friendlies. The stadium is 100 years old and the club has been around since 1878; to have only lost ONE title in all of this time is astonishing. Add to the fact that Estudiantes did it 6,952 miles away, against a highly savage crowd, against a world class team with players that recently won the World Cup and in a difficult stadium to play at. Only a handful of stadiums around the world can be considered more intimidating than Old Trafford. Many people think that Estudiantes celebrated beating the English. To a certain extent that true but far from being the most important. This IC win was celebrated so much because Estudiantes beat EVERYTHING they were thrown...except the food, drinks and coins being thrown, of course lol Jamen Somasu (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You have missed the point. It is extremely rare that competitions are contested at Old Trafford, and even rarer for United to be involved when the final does happen at OT, so it's not a big deal at all that United lost the Intercontinental Cup there. Incidentally, United actually lost the Intercontinental Cup in Argentina, not in Manchester, since the match at Old Trafford was a draw! – PeeJay 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Aparently, you don't know what happened at the end of the first match. Estudiantes wiped the floor with Manchester in the first 30 minutes but only managed a 1-0 scoreline by then (it could have easily been 4-0, 5-0 if they would have slowed down a bit). The second leg of the video is almost up. I will upload the first leg afterwards.

It was obvious that the Manchester players had never faced aan intimidating atmoshere ever and it was very evident in their highly-cautious play. Nobby Stiles dedicated himself to kicking Veron and Malbernalt's ankles (which got him, rightfully, sent off). The rest of the game, it was basically Manchester United parking the bus. That they even came out losing by a 1-0 scoreline is a miracle of life: La Bombonera is a true hell-hole for any visiting team to play, of the most intimidating stadiums in the world. And you must have a good pair of balls to not crap your pants, everything that Manchester did not have.

Here is the thing you don't know: the players from Manchester were celebrating at the end of the match. Why? A 1-0 score was seen as an easy thing to overturn. Here is an English newspaper clip mentioning how it was going to be "so hard" to do it lol ([http://www.flickr.com/photos/manchesterunitedman1/3472703805/ nespaper clip). And I also left a three-part documentary onf the 1968 Intercontinental Cup page which clearly states that after the 1-0 game, everyone thought Manchester was going to win. One day, the competition was treated as a club World Cup, the highest honor a team could gain. The day after Manchester was effectively beaten in Old Trafford (Veron did you guys in), it was called "an irrelevant and insignificant competition" (which is also on the 2nd newspaper I brought up) confirming how the English destroyed what they couldn't win. Jamen Somasu (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jamen: you are expressing yourself in a way that shows you clearly have a dislike for Manchester United. I agree with the PeeJay, I do not think it is notable that Manchester United have only lost one trophy at Old Trafford, because trophies are very rarely contested at Old Trafford! Tom (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are now assuming things which are far from the truth; I don't care about ManU. I neither like or dislike them. They are just another team to me. I am merely stating fact...NOTABLE fact. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a fact? Tom (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wading into an old discussion here, but of all 58 of the the trophies United have won, only 5 have been by means of a one-off or double-legged final match played at Old Trafford: 4 Charity Shields (two wins and two draws), a European Super Cup (a win). The only loss was indeed in the Inter Continental Cup, but the fact so few were played at Old Trafford means it is pretty trivial really. Also, that newspaper article Jamen Somasu posted states that the match was expected to be very difficult for United, but he seems to have interpretted the exact opposite from it. How very odd. Also, Nobby Stiles was sent off in the first leg for disputing a linesman's decision and he left the field with a gash over his eye he received after being headbutted by an Estudantes player. The English press reported it as "The Night They Spat On Sportsmanship". Also, I think he'll find the British press dismissed the intercontinental cup as pointless on both occasions United won it, too. Decorativeedison (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Image in the Structure and facilities section

The shading in the diagram at the top of the Structure and facilities section appears on the full size SVG when it is clicked on, but not the smaller size that appears in the article proper. This should be remedied as soon as possible, as the description of the image makes mention of the shaded area. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Record attendance for a non-competitive game

The article says it was set against Inter in 2007 with 73,738, referenced with this article, which specifically mentions the record being set. However the Paul Scholes testimonial this month had an attendance of 74,731 (http://www.manutd.com/en/Fixtures-And-Results/Match-Reports/2011/Aug/manchester-united-v-ny-cosmos.aspx), although no mention is made of it being a record. Do we keep the old reference and add the report on the Scholes match? Decorativeedison (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing, I have added Paul Scholes testimonial match and its ref.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Decorativeedison (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Email from Manchester United Staff. Decided to email them to solve this problem once and for all.

From: ticketingandmembershipservices@manutd.co.uk Sent: 29 November 2011 17: 29PM To: (removed for privacy reasons) Subject: RE: Stadium Enquiries

Dear Supporter

Thanks for your email.

The stadium capacity is 75,797 hope this information is of help to you.

Kind Regards

Janine

Customer Service Advisor

T +44 (0) 161 868 8000 F +44 (0) 161 868 8452 E ticketingandmembershipservices@manutd.co.uk

7407_manuplain.jpg

From: (removed for privacy reasons) Sent: 29 November 2011 07:10 To: Tickets Subject: Stadium Enquiries

Hi, may I know what is the current exact capacity of Old Trafford?

(removed for privacy reasons)

Please consider the environment and only print this email if you really need to

Manchester United Limited is a company registered in England (number 2570509) having its registered office at Sir Matt Busby Way, Old Trafford, Manchester, M16 0RA. This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Manchester United or any of its group companies. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender either by replying to this e-mail or by telephone on +44 (0)161 868 8000

Syjytg (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It was nice to see the Email BUT, The Premier League stats uses now 75,811. they also updated thier website and all information was updated to current season, the email sender (yes manutd person) might not know the changes of PL.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A Manchester United staff will definitely know its own capacity. Syjytg (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't correct to some competitions, But PL allows Old Trafford a capicity of 75,811 during Premier Leauge games now. therefor its better to have the higher number.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible to have more seats than the capacity given by the staff?Syjytg (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Because there's always the possibility that Old Stafford staff may not be all-knowing and infallible? Because I'm pretty sure the Old Trafford staff person didn't go out and count every seat in the stadium and find out how many people are allowed in the hospitality suites, etc. Whatever the true capacity may be, the one published by the sport's sanctioning body is official and verifiable. Also, let's not go around ignoring WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. --Mosmof (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Better writing?

Honor the King has reverted my minor edit on the grounds that the original is "better writing". Let's see if he's right by comparing my version to his preferred one.

This is how it reads now:

United's permanent residence since 1910, with the exception of an eight-year absence from 1941 to 1949, following the bombing of the stadium during the Second World War. During this period, the club shared Maine Road with local rivals, Manchester City.

My version is:

United's home since 1910, with the exception of an eight-year absence from 1941 to 1949 when, following the bombing of the stadium during the Second World War, the club shared Maine Road with local rivals Manchester City.

My version follows two of George Orwell's famous rules in Politics and the English Language, namely:

2.Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3.If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

Using these rules as a guideline, I substituted home for permanent residence and when for During this period.

There is also no need for a comma between local rivals and Manchester City. A comma signifies that the reader should pause between the words which is clearly not the case in this sentence. Haldraper (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You have raised a couple of hypocritical points. You've merged sentences by introducing commas, then complain that the page uses too many unnecessary commas. The original version is perfectly intelligible, so I don't see any reason to change it. Furthermore, this isn't the only change you've introduced, so please don't attempt to use this discussion to justify your entire edit. – PeeJay 10:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Raised pitch?

Anyone know why the pitch is raised, and more importantly, have a reliable cite? I searched a bit and found nothing but speculation and guess about drainage, undersoil heating, and previous problems with the turf.

It's an interesting and uncommon feature, and would improve the article.TjoeC (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can't find a reliable source, it's not worth putting in. We shouldn't be risking this article's "Featured Article" status for the sake of a trivial fact. – PeeJay 04:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

New Picture

I replaced the main photo with this, and it was almost immediately changed back. I realise it was probably better to get some other editor's thoughts on it first, rather than just changing it, and that maybe I'm biased seeing as I took the photo. Is it suitable to replace the main infobox photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamUK (talk • contribs) 17:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't completely remove your image, I just moved it to a more appropriate place. I think the current infobox pic is better since it shows the club's name in the seats. Far better IMO. – PeeJay 19:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

United's home after WWII

Old Trafford has been United's home ground since 1910. It did not stop being their home ground when it was bombed in 1941. Because of the bomb damage, they played at Maine Road after the war. Maine Road did not become United's home ground, they just used it to play matches. Haldraper (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, hence why the words "home ground" did not appear in the original version of the article. What I have a problem with is the ham-fisted language you have used. When you say "[Old Trafford] has been United's home since 1910", and then immediately talk about their time at Maine Road in the 1940s, that may be confusing (at least at first glance) to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. Furthermore, removing the words "local rivals" from that sentence robs the statement of its impact. – PeeJay 12:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Soccer Aid

Soccer Aid venue 2006, 2010-Present

• 27 May 2006 England 2–1 RoW attendance 71,960
• 06 June 2010 England 2-2 RoW attendance 65,493
• 27 May 2012 England 3-1 RoW attendance 67,346
• 08 June 2014 England 2-4 RoW attendance 65,574
• 05 June 2016 England TBC RoW attendance TBC