Talk:Estádio do Maracanã

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football The article on Estádio do Maracanã is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Flag
Portal
Estádio do Maracanã is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Peer review Estádio do Maracanã has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] Title

The title should be Maracanã Stadium because is a English article. --ClaudioMB 05:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the stadium names in Wikipedia articles are in their native languages. For example, check the Italian stadiums and the Argentine stadiums. So, Maracanã needs to be named in their Brazilian name. --Carioca 05:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree if "Estadio do Maracana" was the official name or the most popular nickname. Like in the Italians stadiums you find San Siro but not Stadio San Siro. Or like in the Argentine stadiums you find Estadio Alberto J. Armando but not Estadio Bombonera. Or even on Brazilian stadiums were you find Castelao but not Estadio do Castelao. I from Fortaleza, you could call it both ways, but Castelao it is way more popular then Estadio do Castelao. So, may point is, it should be the most popular name "Maracana". If there is already an article using the "Maracana" title, then change to "Maracana (stadium)" showing that the most know name is "Maracana" but we need distinguish it from the other "Maracana" title.--ClaudioMB 03:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seating capacity

Now, what is the problem with finding the seating capacity on the stadium? Should we take into consideration stading seats as well, I think so.. (if they are there)..

I have seen mentioned that the stadium had a very reduced capacity (in the low 40,000) for a good part of 2005 (?) (Ill try to find the links once more) due to the work they were putting in for the Pan 2007-games, and it has been closed as well in periods.. Can we get a consensus on the exact numbers? I have also seen the 95,000 or 96,000 mentioned several times, but I believe these are or were tentative numbers, but I really don't have anything to back that claim up as of now. Anyone? --Stigmj 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We have to use verifiable sources, and the sources needs to be reliable. As Globo and the Brazilian Olympic Committee are both verifiable and reliable sources, we need to keep the 95,000 capacity. Another reason to keep the 95,000 capacity in the article is because Terra, which is one of the largest internet and content providers in Brazil, also reports that Maracanã's capacity is 95,000. Curiously, according to the 2007 Campeonato Brasileiro Guide, by Placar magazine, the stadium's capacity is 92,000, and according to today's Lance! newspaper, the stadium's capacity is 86,464. --Carioca 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I did some more digging, and found the following links:
I would think the first two of these links are relatively verifiable and reliable. The first of them is very new as well... So what now? --Stigmj 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yet another interesting link: Terra reports the stadium will have 86,100 seats after the reform, and it will be reduced even more to about 75,000 at a later stage to give way to more shops etc. --Stigmj 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a really complicated question, because there are several reliable sources and almost every source lists a different capacity. Unfortunately, the official website is obviously outdated, so we can't use it as a reference to the stadium capacity. The Terra link you posted is good and it is very updated. Maybe we should kept the 95,000 capacity for now, and change later to 86,100 seats and then to 75,000 seats. --Carioca 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Or yet, even outdated, maybe we should keep what the official website says and wait until the end of the Pan-American Games when the stadium will be re-opened at its full capacity. Then we'll see what's for real. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Essa nossa "mania" de acharmos que tudo nosso é maior, cabe mais, é o melhor, é simplesmente causado pelo falso patriotismo que temos de querermos ser mais que qualquer outro, o dos outros nunca valem nada, somos os bons, ninguém pode comosco. Bem, isso tudo é causado pelo nossa imprensa "marron", encabeçada pela Rede Globo, que fica sempre querendo levar os cidadãos a ufanismos desacerbados, e nós idiotas acreditamos. Na verdade se o estádio cabe 220.000, 150.000, ou 70.000 pessoas sentadas, o importante é saber quem é que quer colocar tantas pessoas dentro de lugares sem nenhuma estrutura de conforto, somos nós mesmos, que acreditamos que nós somos sempre maiores. Quanta "burrice" a nossa. Tive que escrever isso em português, pois não saberia me explicar em inglês, me desculpem pelo desabafo. abraço a todos Braz Leme
This is English Wikipedia, comments in English only, please. Leave Portuguese for Wiki.pt. Thanks. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tina Turner might have set a world record in 1988, but a-ha set a Guinnes Book world record for the largest paying audience in the world in 1991. Playing for over 195 000 people. I have now added this info to the article. [IMG]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/Mortyman/31b207c4.jpg[/IMG] Mortyman 23:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larger image

Considering this image is a panoramic image, I think it should be enlarged like this:

Though WP:MOS states that images should not have a fixed size, I think this would be one of those exceptions. Any one agree? --MicroX 21:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)