Talk:Wembley Stadium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


For discussion before the article was split, see Talk:Wembley Stadium (1924) --Dtcdthingy 02:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the statement about 'British metal pioneers Metallica' to read 'Heavy metal pioneers' for the sake of factual accuracy. -- 20:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First this first that[edit]

I think it's fair enough having the first goal scorer and stuff but I think it's a bit too bloated. What next? The first player to scratch his arm at Wembley? Andy86 11:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

too true, needs slimming down, but some of the stuff will be relavent in a few years
I think it would be a good idea to have a section for "firsts" because there are a few more facts that could be added like the first player to be sent off etc. I'm not too sure what to title the section - any ideas? Andy86 15:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
But is virtually any of it truly encyclopaedic information, or just trivia and bloat? - fchd 15:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Richard, it's just trivia for the sake of it. It's only in there due to "recentism" i.e. someone adds it in because they just saw it happen on the telly five minutes ago. The equivalent info isn't included in the article on the old Wembley, or Old Trafford, or Anfield etc etc etc ChrisTheDude 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you also, I don't think any of it is needed but if it is insisted upon then it would look a lot better in it's own section. Andy86 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Duh. Only just saw this section, after answer below under "Milestones"... sorry! I think it's worthwhile having significant 'firsts' for historical and factual reasons, but 1) I agree they should be more than just lists, and 2) I think there's nothing wrong with having similar significant firsts entered retrospectively on other related areas like the original Wembley etc. The reason why we have those things entered now isn't only because of "recentism" (though I agree that can be a lot of it) - it also has something to do with the fact that the old Wembley, etc, were built a bit before the arrival of the internet and Wikipedia, so it's a bit harder to go back and retrospectively find out all that stuff and enter it than to enter it in fresh as it happens!! - 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Why is there no mention of the claim that the Sir Norman Foster's design was influenced - to say the least - by a design made by the Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer?

Feel free to add it as long as you can find a reliable source to attribute it to ChrisTheDude 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Here you go - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC).. See how the arch on both designs goes over one side of the stadium rather than through the middle.

shocking, could do with a reference somewhere but not sure how it would fit in.-- 10:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No longer planned[edit]

Should we stop calling Wembley a "planned or proposed stadium?"--BigMac1212 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the notion that it shouldn't anymore be called a 'planned or proposed stadium' since it's construction has already been completed so it words 'under construction' should be edited as well. -- Maajid 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Largest roof covered stadium claim?[edit]

Docklands Stadium in Melbourne Australia looks like it has much more roof covering than Wembley does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

The Docklands Stadium in Melbourne only has 56,000 seats. Every seat at Wembley is covered, even though it doesn't have a cover. Other stadiums like the Millenium Stadium has a cover as well, but thats only 74,500.--Soopa hoops77 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First match?[edit]

It will be ready to host the 2007 FA Cup Final, as its first football match. - aren't they holding an England U-21 match there first? Or did I dream that......? ChrisTheDude 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes U21's are meant to be playing italy there. Willy turner 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
But that won't be full capacity... only 60,000. I think the cup final will be the first full capacity match. robwingfield «TC» 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


why is the cost 757 million and its citation says 1 billion and in the article it says it cost 793 million?

See my response to price. Paulbrock 00:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the cost of the stadium (757) doesn't take account of the cost to purchase the land and ?demolish the old one. You're right though, it should do, how can the cost of buying the land be excluded from the cost of construction? The main piece is coming across as a puff piece for the FA. Not in terms of POV but that lots of the awkward stuff about financial mismanagement and waste of resources being left out.


how can bentley be the first english goal scorer when it said someone else had done it. and it says all the records were from the u21 game when the first point is from a charity game???? and i heard nothing of this charity game.

Bentley was the first scorer in a competitive match. There was a charity match held on the community day when the FA invited local people along to test out the facilities, but it was not in any way a competitive match ChrisTheDude 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The charity match is pointless as a statistic for all we know the groundsmen could have had played an unoffcial games amongst themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:24, 19 May 2007
The charity match was an official match, it just wasn't a competitive one. Dbam 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've started to merge in the firsts from the Trivia section into a new "Firsts" section (which can hopefully be expanded over time as more notable firsts happen, eg concerts, etc.). I hope that's agreed to be ok, and if so please everyone help to streamline it and take out any duplicate facts I've missed in the rest of the article. I reckon the "Firsts" section could become a really useful reference section over time! (And maybe "Milestones" from this section header would be a better name than "Firsts"... I dunno. - 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


something should definetly be said about the pitches crap condition

OK then, find a reliable independent source which has criticised the state of the pitch and you can add it in..... ChrisTheDude 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody needs to find it soon, I saw it with my own eyes getting ripped to pieces.

I doubt that very much,the grass has to age and bond with the ground as is the norm,once the roots have taken the pitch will be fine,the currators would have took sunrise and seasonal weather into account when the turf was laid.its just nature.

Yeah it did cut up a awful lot at the 2007 F.A Cup Final, but I don't think it needs to be included in this artical, maybe in the 2007 F.A Cup Final it could if it was correctly sourced by a reliable source. Jazza5 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, and backed up the stated information with a reliable source. It was about time this was brought to people using Wikipedia attention. The pitch was in an absolutely awful state after the car race on the pitch, but now I believe it is to be relaid? If this is true then I will find a source and put it in the article. Jazza5 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


As the article about the original stadium has now been renamed Wembley Stadium (1924), there are countless articles with links to Wembley Stadium which now point to the article about the new stadium, arther than the old one. Is it possible for these links to be fixed (by robot?) so that they are pointed to the correct article? Daemonic Kangaroo 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree the old wembley should be kept as wembley and the new one be renamed to wembley (2007)


the construction cost was 753 million but it says 798, this is incorrect as the that extra bit wasnt for construction, it was just extra stuff blah blah blah. anyway the stadium cost with more extra stuff in total 1 billion. so the cost is either 753 mil or 1 bn but not 798.

loads of figures out there, 753, 757, 798, 1bn. One of the few references to list some of them can be found here [1]. Basically it says that it used to be 757, but ended up being 798. (This article clarifies the discrepency between 798 and 1 billion). As the 798 figure in the body of this article is referenced, I'll update the infobox with this figure and we're at least consistent!! Paulbrock 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


The introductory paragraphs don't mention the capacity. Strange. Not sure what it is officially. This information is needed. --Tatty 05:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually stadia entries on wiki have the highest attendance, I think it is currently the cup final, 89,826

Image for infobox[edit]

Hi. An article of this importance really needs a photograph of the stadium in the infobox (preferably aerial?) which is of course free, but until then I have moved the best existing representation (one without cranes!) from the body of the article to the infobox. I hope this is agreeable as an interim measure? Best wishes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the picture to a one I find more suitable. The one before was only slightly distinguishable as Wembley because of the arch, otherwise it looked like another stadium in the dark. I recently took the picture in the info box and find it suitable as you can see Wembley in its full light. Jazza5 14:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The statistics article[edit]

Could I draw some attention to theWembley Stadium matches article. The sortable tables on it could do with ranking by either goals or appearances (currently its done in alphabetical order!) Other issues can be viewed on the article's talk page. Cheers. CharlieA 15:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Surely the whole point of a sortable table is that you can sort it the way you want? If you want one of the table sorted by goals, click on the goals column (and click again if you want it sorted the other way around). - fchd 17:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the default sorting at the moment is by name, rather than amount of goals, for example. Is there no way you can set the default ranking to be based on the goals/appearances coloumn rather than name? --CharlieA 11:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


does this deserve a place in there? its got prices of food and drink and a match program for the fa cup final. not sure if this is the standard price or this is just the prices for the final.-- 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bizaare comment...[edit]

What does this mean? Is it meant to say cross-channel ferry? The article linked by the reference doesn't shed any light.

"You could drive a cross-channel train through the Wembley Arch[15]"

Nazdakka 14:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says, the trains which travel across the channel (or under to be more precise) would fit within the circumference of the metalwork of the arch.( 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC))
So what? So would a lot of large objects, including my garden
I think your garden is smaller than a channel tunel train. 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think that? And even if you were correct it would still fit. As would a piece of string, probably.
It's a load of rubbish anyway, there's no tracks been laid, so you couldn't drive a train through. Brooza 08:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, who honestly cares...Jazza5 11:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well this now reads: "The Wembley Arch has a diameter greater than that of a cross-channel Eurostar train", which still makes no sense, because a cross channel train is probably only 8 feet high. That would mean a circumference of approximately 48feet, which is insignificant when compared to the circumference of the arch. I think the author meant that the length of the arch, or possibly it's span, is greater than the length of a Eurostar. Or perhaps they meant that if there were tracks within the arch itself then a train would fit; but why that would be important is beyond me, as the most impressive thing about the arch is obviously its span/height. Mike (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wembley Way or Olympic Way?[edit]

This article refers to Wembley Way in numerous places, however the official name is now Olympic Way. I can't say I personally like the name change, but would it not be more accurate to refer to it by it's official name? ( 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

The official street name has ALWAYS been Olympic Way. However, it appears that even the BBC pundits etc. on Saturday were referring to it as Wembley Way now. - fchd 05:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be a section about the concerts that happened their? The Freddy Mercury tribute concert was held their after he died. I think it there should be a section for that, after all it did support AIDS awareness and raised money for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Try Wembley Stadium (1923) or specifically Wembley Stadium (1923)#Music. This is the article for the new stadium, not the old one.... ChrisTheDude 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

uefa star rating[edit]

finally the source to end any discussion of is it isnt it. in short uefa isnt happy becuase they had 2 meetings with the designers saying"you need to do this if you want to host a european final.." --Numberwang 11:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Clearly the lack of a running track is an issue with UEFA, as is failure to follow with blind obediance. Londo06 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of date[edit]

The page refers to past events if in the future Yini3 13:08, 25 May 2007

List of performances[edit]

It's not going to be practical to keep this list of performances at the stadium going, think how long the list will be in just a year's time. I think the list should be deleted, or perhaps a new page created for the list (though i don't really think such a list is notable enough for its own article). Abc30 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Concert for Diana and Live Earth concert, London[edit]

Concert for Diana (The People's Princess) was a concert held at the new Wembley Stadium in London in honour of the late Diana, Princess of Wales on July 1, 2007, which would have been her 46th birthday; 2007 is also the 10th anniversary of her death. The concert was hosted by Diana's sons, Prince William and Prince Harry who helped to organise for many of the world's most famous entertainers and singers to perform at the concert. The concert was broadcast in 140 different countries across the world. And one week later
On July 7, 2007 the venue of the Wembley Stadium was one of the locations of the Live Earth-concerts: Live Earth concert, London

Did they make use of each others facilities and know-how?
Who did pay for the original preparations, technical equipment etc. The organisation of the Concert for Diana or the organisation of Live Earth or did they split the bill?
Which artists performed therefore only once or just twice?
How did staff and management perform?

- ( Wereld 01:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC) )

Moved here from article[edit]


  • The exterior of Wembley Stadium was used in the 2007 movie 28 Weeks Later. However the scene inside the stadium, where the pitch is overgrown and was primarily used as a rendezvous point for the NATO defence force is actually of the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff due to Wembley not being completed. [2]
  • On the Live 8 DVD, at one point during the Live 8 concert in London, a far-away shot of Wembley Stadium under construction was seen before the camera zoomed back into Hyde Park. The original Wembley Stadium was the site of the London Live Aid concert in 1985.
  • There is a steam engine buried underneath the pitch at Wembley. This was used by the contractors that built the original stadium in the 1920s. Following a derailment, it was decided that the engine should be buried on the spot rather than being recovered.

A steam engine under the original pitch would be exposed and the new pitch is 4 metres lower and offset to the north. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Why do the Rugby league side not share With the Union Side, Also why was the FA cup finals held in Cardiff and not Twickenham for all those years? 19:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was wondering that aswell, it seemed at the time a strange decision having our cup competition in another country. Jazza5 19:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they enquired and the Rugby Football Union told them to get knotted..... ChrisTheDude 20:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bigger, and needed the money.

Twickenham does not have the segregation needed to keep rival football fan apart. The Millenium Stdium in Cardiff has gates that are open for the rugby but can be closed for the football. (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Which sports by the name of "football" might Wembley Stadium be compatible with?[edit]

Just curious. So far, they've had Association and Rugby League, and they're about to do gridiron. Could Aussie or Canadian football be played at Wembley? 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Canadian Football could possibly be staged at Wembley. There's no chance of it staging an AFL match. An Australian Football field must be at least 135 x 110 metres. The National Football Council suggests the ideal field dimensions are 165 x 135 metres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

NFL @ Wembley[edit]

Is there any interest and/or value in adding a picture of Wembley during the NFL match? Andsome 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Does there really need to be a succession box for the NFL game at the bottom of the page? It's just a normal season game. JoelUK (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


These sections are nothing but advertising and add nothing to the article. Would like to suggest deleting both. (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Couls maybe be added in the 'building' section? However, they are not 'firsts', so I've removed them from the 'firsts'(trivia) section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heenan73 (talkcontribs) 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Their are too many WP:NN firsts , these should be timed and spun off to a list of First at Wembley Gnevin (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 'firsts' is no more than trivia. But many of the points raised could be written into a 'history' section - the stadium won't always be new! Additionally, several of the snippets could be usefully (and logically) transferred to the 'old stadium' page.

I'd happily do it, but last time I did something equally sensible, someone who thought he owned a page deleted all my hard work, and frankly, I don't have time to waste bickering about it, sorry.Heenan73 —Preceding comment was added at 13:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Five-a-side Nonsense[edit]

I assume the recent addition about five-a-side is nonsense? Brequinda (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


12:13, 10 April 2008 (Talk) (35,113 bytes) (undo)

I think this should be undone - or at least changed to incorporate the information that was removed.

Firsts at the new Wembley Stadium – Football[edit]

Is there logic to the order? If there is then could someone say? It seems to start off in date order then joint related events (FA cup followed by league cup) then it just appears to jump around. I think it should simply be in date order else group them e.g. first England win, first England defeat, first England player to score at old and new Wembley. What do others think? Jniech (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

UEFA elite stadium?[edit]

Is Wembley not an UEFA elite stadium? I can't believe that it's not, but neither that article nor this mentions it. Grunners (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The UEFA elite stadium article lists Wembley and the Emirates Stadium as being given a rating after inspection in March 2008. Looks like we have a few out of date articles on our hands then. Grunners (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious statement[edit]

"The most expensive stadium in the world." At 1.6 billion dollars, the New Yankee Stadium will very likely surpass the New Wembley Stadium as the most expensive sports venue on the face of the planet. Therefore I have changed the sentence to "one of the most." Notice how I have not created yet another "Brits vs. Yanks—who's better?" competition so I have not mentioned anything about the New Yankee being more expensive. Please do not change the statement back to "the most" as it is (1) no longer true and (2) unnecessary. It is also convenient not to say that the New Wembley is the second most expensive, given that currency exchanges waver too much and it is too difficult to determine whether it is the first (ahead of the New Yankee), second, third (behind the Meadowlands), or fourth (behind the New Cowboys). Do we have an agreement? -- --AndresTM (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC) 21:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree, and have changed it. Although this user quotes several American stadiums, even the Camp Nou in Spain cost more (although the only source I can see for that is Wikipedia itself-clearly I havnt looked hard enough). I dont know what the true cost for Wembley was, although if it was about £800 milllion as is said in this atricle, it seems as though it wasnt THE most expensive stadium in the world JimBrownish (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just trying to make a point. I don't mean to say that the only stadiums that could be more expensive are all American. But thank you for changing it.--AndresTM (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

UEFA 5 stars/Elite[edit]

It is my belief that the 'star' rating system of stadia by UEFA is now out of date. The classes are simply 1,2,3 and elite. Therefore the star rating should be deleted and replaced by elite status? This is not only applicable to Wembley but to other stadia on here too. --Markh991 (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wembley/Cowboys Stadium[edit]

"Wembley's 90,000 capacity makes it the second largest stadium in Europe (after Camp Nou) and the second largest (and tallest) in the world with every seat under cover (Cowboys Stadium)."

According to its Wikipedia article, the Cowboys Stadium has 80000 seats - fewer than Wembley - and the rest of its capacity is made up of standing areas. Does this invalidate the above statement? It's ambiguous at best. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole "X stadium is the most expensive/largest/best/prettiest on Earth" business is unnecessary, misleading, and in many cases groundless. We agreed on not saying that it is the most expensive, as there are at least three other venues whose price tags are in that vicinity, and currency exchange rates are constantly fluctuating. Let's agree on not saying that it is the second largest OR the largest (stadium under cover) because that isn't always true either. Wembley's capacity varies (~70,000-~90,000) depending on what it is being used for, but so does Cowboys' (~80,000,~110,000). In fact the latter was packed with about 105,000 people recently, all under cover. Let's just say Wembley is one of the largest in the world with every seat under cover.--AndresTM (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, I agree but would go further. "The largest stadium in the world" is notable; "the largest seated stadium in the world" arguably so; "the largest stadium with every seat under cover" is pretty tenuous; and "one of the largest in the world with every seat under cover" is getting so contrived as to be meaningless. It's fine as a marketing angle, but worthless in an encyclopedia, so I'd suggest we just delete the line altogether. Agreed?Clicriffhard (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The extra seats could be a result of design plans such as overhanging tiers/balcony seatings or the seats coming to a higher point. And I think Cowboys Stadium has more square footage, so the roof would still be bigger to cover the area. But to clarify to some people, such as AndresTM the 100,000 + people is because of standing room. The endzone windows are opened and people cram in the large space provided. Mc134 (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. That said, I think it's irrefutable that Wembley has the largest seating capacity with every seat under cover. I still think that price-wise, we should not say that Wembley is the most expensive, but one of the most. Same for the New Yankee Stadium. Like I said, it all depends on currency exchange rates. The dollar and the pound will go to and fro, and yet the price of this stadium was 798M pounds, not 1.57G dollars.--AndresTM (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It is pretty clear that Wembley can only make a 'largest stadium in the world' claim if a fairly tenuous definition is used. That being the case the simple statement that it is the 'largest stadium in the world' (in the second paragraph) should either be removed or adjusted to include the more precise claim being made. Marlarkey (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wembley year confusion?[edit]

Hello, I'm wondering, if the wembley stadium opened in 2007, then how did Beyoncé perform her concert in wembley in 2004? Or was it another concert in the UK called wembley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraman X77 (talkcontribs) 03:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It must have been at Wembley Arena, a completely different venue in the same area of London -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Someone added a reference to Fieldturf in the infobox - Revision #322108078 - They made this change without citing any reference or adding any text to support this change. I can't find any reference on the net to Fieldturf at Wembley so I've undone this.... anyone know any different ? Marlarkey (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not unless it was laid over the usual pitch for the gridiron games. The Football Association banned artificial pitches in professional football years ago so, funnily enough, the national stadium has a fully natural grass pitch -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tallest stadium in the world[edit]

Montreal's Olympic Stadium has a total height of 175 meters, which is 41 meters higher than the Wembley Stadium. Therefore, I removed this statement in the intro section. --S23678 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you got any sources for this? All the ones I've seen are unequivocal, Wembley is the tallest stadium, whereas for Montreal they seem to only say 'tallest inclined tower'. MickMacNee (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, the claim of Wembley stadium being the highest in the world was not sourced, and is not cited in Wembley Stadium official website. I only get a "With a span of 315 metres, the Arch will be the longest single span roof structure in the world" as for world record. Montreal's Olympic Stadium Tower has the same structural purpose as the Wembley Stadium's Arch, which is to give some uplifting force on structural elements of the stadium, so I don't understand why the arch would be considered part of the stadium, while not the tower. Anyway, unless there's a strong source citing the claim I've erased, I think it's appropriate to leave it out of the article. --S23678 (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I always assumed that this claim was based on the the height of the seating rather than the height of the arch. Otherwise anyone wanting to beat this record would just attach a stadium to a skyscraper. And what about floodlight towers - they're often pretty tall. The only thing that makes sense as a measure is the height of the actual stadium. Marlarkey (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Structurally, both structures can't exist without the "extra element", which is a tower for the Olympic Stadium (in order to have a roof) and an arch for the Wembley Stadium. Both of these elements can't be excluded from the structure, or they would collapse (well, in the case of the Olympic Stadium, it has the ability to collapse by itself...!). So, both of theses extra elements can't be considered as being apart from the stadium. I've never heard of measuring the height of a stadium from the height of it's highest seats. Since this distance is not mentioned anywhere in the article, I really doubt the original text was using this height for the claim, but if you can find a credible source, feel free to include it in a clear way. Finally, the claim of "largest stadium in the world" should be clarified as well, since it's not stating the criteria used to make such a claim (seating capacity, volume, circumference?) --S23678 (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it the claim to "largest stadium in the world" was based on being the stadium with the largest capacity where every seat was under cover. A bit of a tenuous claim to be honest and in any case even if this claim was true I'm not sure whether it still is given the Cowboy's stadium which has been built since Wembley. I guess the claim might still stand for Europe. Marlarkey (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Here [3] is The Independent stating it is the worlds tallest stadium. MickMacNee (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
For a start that article is from 2004 during the construction so may well have been superceded. And secondly there is no original reference in that article so it is only a secondary source without a reference to the primary source, in other words it is peddling the same false claim. Marlarkey (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know how the height of the arch could have changed since it was physically erected on site - which is the event the article refers to. The Independent is perfecly fine to use as a secondary source, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We absolutely do not require them to declare their source before it can be used - in the absence of any evidence of a retraction or clarification, should a contradictory source be found as is suggested above might happen, then Wikipedia merely needs to correctly attribute the different sources within the text. MickMacNee (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The arch height hasn't changed (well actually I guess it could have settled down), the situation is that it looks as if the claim was never true in the first place - see the comments about the Montreal Olympic Stadium being taller - so the claim appears never to have been substatiated and verified but it has been repeated over and over again in other articles, like the one in the Independent. Using secondary reference like this just perpetuates the false claim and instead original primary sources should be sought. Journalistic newspaper articles are mostly pretty useless these days as evidential references because most of them are just regurgetated poorly researched publicity materials. So what are the primary sources of the claim ? Where exactly did the claim first originate ? What verification was made of the claim ? And is it actually true ? Do you have a reference which verifies that 133m is taller than 175m ? It certainly seems from the additional references provided here that it is a false claim and therefore it has no place in the article. Marlarkey (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
What additional sources? All we have here is a bit of original research by editors who want to invent their own definitions of how the tallest stadium is measured, and the rather ludicrous claim that the Independent is not a reliable source. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Well what we have here are various secondary sources citing that Wembley is the "tallest stadium in the world", a claim that does not appear on Wembley's own web site. And we have another stadium that includes "an inclined tower" that is clearly taller than Wembley, and again the Montreal stadium doesn't make any claim about being the "tallest stadium in the world" on their own web site. So it seems neither stadium makes a claim and afaik no independent verification agency (eg an architectural institute) has ruled on the conflicting definitions and third party claims. In the circumstances it seems best to leave out any reference to this tenuous and disputed 'record'. The only NPOV way of including it would be to reflect that it is a disputed claim that has not been independently verified. Marlarkey (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW the tower structure of the Montreal Stadium holds up the roof in the same way as the arch of Wembley so it has as much claim to be part of the stadium as Wembley's arch does Marlarkey (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
What we have is an independent third party source stating Wembley is the "tallest stadium in the world", and no sources presented disputing it, retracting it, or contradicting it, without employing editor's original research interpretations of things. What can also be stated as incontrovertable fact alongside this fact in the article, is the height of the Montreal stadium, without any other qualification, explanation, or commentary. That is on current evidence, the only thing that is proper, everything else you have said above is frankly not supported by policy in the slightest, and your interpretations of RS, NPOV and basic purpose of Wikipedia are miles from reality. MickMacNee (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm really confused here about your blindness to facts.... there is no primary source of the "tallest stadium in the world" claim - however the net is full of unverified secondary reports that perpetuate the myth - just because something is repeated frequently doesn't mean it is true and doesn't qualify it for entry in an encyclopedia. Wembley don't even claim the record themselves on their 'stats and facts' page ( where they do claim other records (longest single span roof structure for instance). There is also incovertable evidence that the Montreal Stadium tower (which holds up the roof and is therefore an essential part of the structure) is over 40m taller than Wembley. Why do you want to ignore that fact just to perpetuate the myth that Wembley is the tallest stadium when it isn't ? Marlarkey (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
What we could do is include the statement that Wembley Stadium is "the tallest stadium in the world" using the newspaper reference but add "but this is is contradicted by the fact that Montreal Stadium is taller" with the reference to Montreal's own page. Marlarkey (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Your whole interpretation of how primary and secondary sources are used to support Wikipedia text is just flat wrong. Your idea that the Independent is just full of unverified myths based merely on what you think has happened without any evidence, is just flat wrong. Your idea that Wembley has to state a claim about Wembley before Wikipedia can, is just flat wrong - infact, it is actually the other way round - if Wembley stated it, and no secondary source repeated it, then Wikipedia would have to make it clear in the text that there was a lack of secondary sources backing it up. Where there are legitimate reliable secondary sources, which the Independent is and always will be one in the eyes of Wikipedia, and there are no other sources contradicting what it says, then you do not need "scare quotes" or any other such implications of bullshitedness in the text, the footnote is sufficient for the purposes of verification. The height of Montreal can be added next to it, with a source, as a basic incontrovertible fact, but you cannot say 'contradict' or 'taller' because that is your own personal synthesis of how "tallest stadium" was measured by the source backing it up. We are after all, only repeating the description used, which is what Wikipedia does all day every day. It is not Wikipedia's place to expand or interpret that further, or point out there is no body out there that compiles a list of tallest stadiums, or that it contains no definition for how it is measured, or anything else that falls squarely in the camp of original research. It's not like the article's whole notability rests on this one claim. It should be clear after everything I've written that I am not 'blind to facts', and I had already told you above what can and cannot be stated using just the sourced material - what the Independent says, and the uncontrovertible fact, the height of the Montreal tower. I have no wish to waste any more time on this, there are many noticeboards out there where you can have my interpretations of policy checked, so please, feel free, but I'm done on the issue unless or until anything else is provided that is not an advocation of synthesis and original research. MickMacNee (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Largest Stadium[edit]

I removed "the new Wembley is the largest stadium in the world" from the second paragraph. A straightforward reading of this phrase is that Wembley seats more spectators than any other stadium in the world contradicting the first paragraph. If there is another characteristic of which it is the largest that needs to be inserted into the pharse. E.g. "the new Wembley is the largest stadium in height from ground level to top of structure in the world".

This phrase was tagged for clarification thus "[clarification needed]" but it seems to me that phrase is just plain wrong as it stands and whoever replaces it should state by which measure (criteria) it is the worlds largest.

Nick Beeson (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you look above you'll see that it isn't the tallest either. A false story that has circulated on the net for years and all those unsubstantiated articles on the net have been used as citations for the incorrect claim. Marlarkey (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Where's your actual proof this is a 'false story', beyond your own analysis (a.k.a orignal research)? I see you aren't going to bother taking the advice above to check your interpretations of policy. It's no skin off my nose, but it will only go one way for you here if you don't, because your ideas are way off base. MickMacNee (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
And the largest description probably comes from the text: "With 90000 seats the new Wembley is the largest football stadium in the world with every seat under cover", which suggest by virtue of there being no comma between 'world' and 'with', that this is only a claim for being the largest football stadium measured by covered capacity. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I would have no problem with the text including the nuanced claim "largest stadium in the world with every seat under cover" (but that isn't what the text said). Marlarkey (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Green Day's largest show?[edit]

I believe Green Day's largest show was Woodstock 94 witch was an estimated 350,000 attended the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsdojo (talkcontribs) 06:25, 8 February 2011 (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 necessarily 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 13:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Partially retractable roof[edit]

Why is the roof not a fully retractable one? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I would assume that it's only partially retractable because when open, the spectators are still (front rows aside, perhaps) covered. dpchalmers (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


The Infobox lists a capacity for athletics but as far as I can tell, the present Wembley Stadium has never hosted athletics and doesn't have the space for a full 400m track. I may remove this if no one can demonstrate that it is otherwise. dpchalmers (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC) I think I've just found the answer to my own question, but for for anyone else - it was designed before the Olympic Stadium was conceived, so that it could potentially host a World Athletics Championships, or whatever. dpchalmers (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Where would this go in the article?[edit]

It's not sport or music, but 60,000 people went to it. '''tAD''' (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Wembley Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)