Talk:Arsenal Stadium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arsenal Stadium article.
Article policies
Good article Arsenal Stadium has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Selected content star Arsenal Stadium is part of the random selection of content on Portal:Association football. An excerpt from this article regularly appears on the Portal's main page.

Contents

[edit] Pitch dimensions

It would be great if someone could tap up a code to show the dimmensions of the pitch graphically vs. the dimensions of the "standard" pitch size for all new FIFA-sanctioned stadia. I really feel this would add a great deal to this article as the pitch size has so much to do with the character of the venue and its fame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.230.121.224 (talk • contribs) 04:33, December 8, 2005.

[edit] The Home of Football?

To call Highbury the Home of Football seems overtly bias no?

[edit] Camera angle

i've noticed watching some arsenal games at highbury that they have a lower camera angle than most stadiums

it makes the game seem faster and more exciting, especially when paired with the small pitch and the style arsenal usually plays

IYOs will this be replicated in the new arsenal stadium or will they use the standard that every other stadium uses

Chalmation 01:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

One imagines they'll go for a more standard approach - as it allows the TV compaies to get the wide shots. Bit of a shame.... ed g2s • talk 13:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horse/Squirrel

No mention of the Highbury Horse or the Highbury Squirell Lazmac 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC) and the marble halls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.10.5 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final record

link for citation of final record [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexmandel (talk • contribs) 23:59, May 9, 2006.

[edit] Camera angle (2)

Anonymous Comments : Are you guys joking or something....you can go ask any true football fan who enjoys Arsenal's style of play that football is meant to be watch with a camera angle just like that of the Nou Camp....the camera angle is the only reason I don't like Highbury games. In the farther end I always wonder what time the ball is going to roll out because I can't tell where the touchline is. Another thing is after Arsenal lose the ball I can never tell if someone from the opposing team is going to pick it up or an Arsenal man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.11.204.229 (talk • contribs) 22:44, May 10, 2006.

Come on, the Highbury camera angle was the second best thing about the stadium! It was awesome, it was almost like being on the pitch. The best thing about it, obviously, was how close the fans were to the pitch... each of these has been lost now that we've moved. *sob*.Mvpujols777 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote

The footnote to the complete record still says that the website was last edited before the last game played which is no longer true. i don't know how to edit the references section. rmoving that sentence is all that needs doing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexmandel (talk • contribs) 01:03, July 10, 2006.

OK - I found a version of that page which included the Wigan result and have updated the link. Qwghlm 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Doesn't pass right now Pass

Additional comments :

  • Images such as Image:Highbury farewell.jpg, Image:Highburyapartment.jpg don't state their fair use rationale.
  • Is it important that designed by renowned stadium architect Archibald Leitch, says he is renowned? I doubt it adds to the article.

After these minor fixes are done, the GA status will be given. Lincher 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the farwell logo (as I don't think it contributes to the content of the article enough to justify fair use), and added an FA rationale to Image:Highburyapartment.jpg. I have also reworded the mention of Leitch. Are these changes enough? Qwghlm 10:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA promotion

Nice work on the article, I think the article is broad enough though expansion in all would bring the article to a greater standard. You should send the article to PR and see what they can help you with in order to better the article. Cheers, Lincher 11:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sad

Shouldn't this ground be heritage listed? Seems sad to lose almost 100 years of history by turning it into a housing area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rogerthat (talk • contribs) 10:30, November 3, 2006 (UTC).

The East and West stands are listed and shall remain. Amedeo Felix 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planning Fiasco

Why no mention of the political mess of the redevelopment in which the developers were allowed by Islington Council to avoid including any affordable housing at the Highbury site? Amedeo Felix 15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC there was no stipulation where the affordable housing was, and it was my understanding it would be in the Ashburton Grove development not the Arsenal Stadium development (which was earmarked as luxury flats from the very beginning) where the affordable housing is. It would help if you backed up your addition with some citations rather than just say it was a "controversy"; as it stood your edit was just POV-pushing. Qwghlm 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The stipulation is implicit where the affordable housing should be in a development - in the development itself and not elsewhere. I'll try to dig up the Mayor of London and Depertment of Communities guidlines if I can...

Allowing them to place the affordable housing elsewhere circumvents the whole point of requiring a percentage of affordable housing - the point being to achieve a mixed community. It is a fact that no affordable housing is on the Highbury site - of I come accross a reference I'll be back on this matter. Oh, the council acted similar with a notoriously hated development in Islington, by Islington Green, called N1rvana[2]... Amedeo Felix 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I just did a Google and found a page the club's official website[3] that states there actually is provision for affordable housing in the Arsenal Stadium development. Unless they have reneged on that commitment then there is no issue here. Qwghlm 16:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's more than I had been led to believe they would be doing, but I have to point out the complete lack of figures for affordable housing at Highbury. It is 40% overall, but that is counting EVERY development they are engaged in, which I think makes itr obvious there is very very little at Highbury. Highbury is clearly a decidedly "luxery" development... Amedeo Felix 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But unless the club are breaking a promise or commitment they previously made, I don't see what the problem is. There is nothing inherently superior about living inside Highbury instead of Ashburton Triangle, and in any case even if the club had committed to more affordable housing inside Highbury, they would have probably built the affordable apartments there to lesser standard of quality than the luxury ones anyway to keep the costs down. Affordable apartments inside Highbury are probably the same quality as the affordable ones at Ashburton. Qwghlm 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I said you are missing the point before and tried to say why. One of the main points of the affordable housing stipulation (this 40% figure from Central Government and the GLA) is to ensure that there is a mix in the community of social/income strata – i.e. to avoid an area being “gentrified”. The ones at fault are not necessarily Arsenal FC, or whatever developer is doing the project in their name, but Islington Council. It is understandable that a development like Highbury would be done with as many luxury flats as possible to maximize the profits – you can’t blame a developer for wanting to do that (although I am entitled to dislike it and the outcome of the greed that leads to a situation where the vast majority of the housing will be for the well off). We can and should be critical of a planning system that allows a developer to run so contrary to the spirit of the affordable housing requirements… Amedeo Felix 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it is not the place to publish your criticisms of a system, without adequate balance. I'm partly sympathetic with your stance on affordable housing but this is not the article to be discussing it and it seems unfair to single out Arsenal Football Club, and this article, for what you see as a failing of housing policy in the UK in general. Qwghlm 16:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Balance? I thought an encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge not political balance, as in don't include this or that bit of information if it is political, or may be seen as political, in nature unless it is opposed by a somehow opposite bit of political information. It is fact that Highbury is largely a luxury development - since that is a fact why not include that information? I don't see that as singling out Arsenal - it just is what is. By the way - why isn't there an a "balanced" page on what Wikipedia IS??? It's an idea - if there's a page on what it is not then there should be one on what it most assuredly IS... Amedeo Felix 17:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But you weren't stating the fact that Highbury was luxury apartments (which it is mostly, but not entirely, as I have shown); you actually asserted that it was somehow "controversial", without giving any evidence that it actually was. You then freely admit you have an agenda to push here, namely "be critical of a planning system", because you deem it "contrary to the spirit of the affordable housing requirements" - an entirely subjective judgement.
The location of the affordable housing is not a matter of public controversy, as far as I can see, just one you happen to disagree with. As I said, read what Wikipedia is not, then after that read the neutral point of view policy and stop treating Wikipedia as an easy vehicle for your political agenda, when it is not. Qwghlm 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things: It was a controversy - a controversy being it was a point of contention locally - people voiced opposition - it got reported. That's controversy by any definition I've ever heard. Secondly, rules and laws do always have a "spirit" as well as a "letter", and the "spirit" of such can and often is applied in legal terms - e.g. in court. I'll happily come back as and when I have found a source to show the "controversy" around the Highbury plan - in other words let that bit drop for now. In the mean time I still think it would be right factually to word the entry to reflect the fact that it is a predominantly luxury development. Amedeo Felix 21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clock End

Incorrect facts: "The Clock End meanwhile had been redeveloped, with a roof, seating and executive boxes fitted in 1989." The Clock end had the roof and executive boxes fitted in the late 80s, but the seating was only added to the terrace after the north bank opened (in about 93/94 if i remember rightly?) 136.8.152.13 09:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and this has been duly corrected. Qwghlm 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)