Talk:Manchester Arena/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV tag

Chunks of this read as though they were written by someone responsible for marketing the MEN Arena. As such, I've inserted a POV tag until these sections are resolved. Matthew 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than one or two points, I would say that the article was pretty accurate, rather than marketing. Many of the points made talking about the success of the arena are true, and should be included. Though are are no criticisms of the arena in the article, I can find no evidence myself there are any major ones, and I feel that the article overall giving the impression the arena is a huge success in a correct one. Eastlygod 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the lack of citation behind rather grandiose language that makes it read as it does. For instance, from the introduction:

• 'has remained one of the most structurally advanced venues on the continent'
• 'first large venue in Europe to follow the traditionally American arena layout of 360 degree seating and its style has been a prototype for many other arenas in Europe such as the Kölnarena in Cologne, Germany'
• 'The building of similar venues across Europe depended on the success of the MEN Arena'
• 'because of the success of the MEN Arena since opening, venues such as Sazka Arena in Prague, Color Line Arena in Hamburg, The O2 in Berlin have been built or are under construction'
• 'seating capacity is one of Europe's most dynamic in terms of variation'
• 'the arena's size and layout makes the venue ideal for any type of performance'

etc.

In addition, the list of notable stars to perform there hasn't yet hit 1,000; I'm disappointed by my fellow Wikipedians. ;-) Matthew 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The list

Its stupid havin such a long list, cause no ones actually going to read. Barnjo 12:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For Deletion

There is a 'Technical Facts' section, it doesnt really need to be listed. Also, all those artists that have played, thats FAR too many. Anyone agree?--Sebastien. (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of date?

The O2 Arena is generally regarded to have overtaken the MEN in terms of ticket sales - though I can't find a nice concise reference about it for 2008 sales; the way this article reads suggests the MEN still sells more... 84.9.58.42 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Boxing figures

Article states that the arena holds up to 21,000 for a boxing match.

However, if the Lower bowl fixed seated capacity is 10,762 and the Upper bowl fixed seated capacity – 8,870 that only leaves 500 seats on the floor. Is that right?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Arena Name

MEN Media are to end the name sponsorship at the end of this year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.15.94 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Largest Arena in Europe?

Whoever edited it to say that - link to something that doesn't disprove it! If it had said 'largest in the European Union' that would be true, but as St Petersburg is Europe (debate Istanbul if you wish) then that city's arena is the largest arena in Europe, yes? 94.194.15.94 (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've actually removed the information altogether, as there are other contenders for this title. The Millenium Stadium, for example, is technically an indoor arena when the roof is closed, and it has a capacity of over 70,000. See here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Article location

Given the recent sponsorship deal and various moves of the page, I thought it might be worth opening a discussion on where this article should be located. I myself am not sure, I don't really think it has a common name as such. I note that some people have already stated that "Manchester Arena" is the common name. However, as far as I am aware, "Manchester Arena" has only ever been used in the last 12 months or so since the MEN sponsorship deal ended. In reality the common name is probably still a variant on the MEN title. However, I fear that moving this article back to MEN Arena is likely to cause confusion to readers. In the absence of an accurate common name I'm left wondering if the article title should be the official name? Pit-yacker (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know it had changed to the Phones4U Arena! Def. should not be moved to that, per WP:COMMONNAME. Happy with either the current title or the MEN Arena. See also the requested move on the Rose Bowl article and also compare with Old Trafford Cricket Ground, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please could the title of the page be amended to "Phones 4u Arena" as per the venue's new official name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.12.200.242 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, official names are not always the best names for a Wikipedia article. As Pit-yacker and Lugnuts allude to, we have a preference for the common name.

As Pit-yacker and Lugnuts also allude to, we can't definitively choose a common name on this occasion.

My take is that we should apply WP:NPOV. Try to pick a title that doesn't take the side of one sponsor over another. After all, the article covers the whole of the arena's history. I think that "Manchester Arena" meets this requirement.

When referring to the arena in the article, we should probably just refer to it as "the arena" in most places, to avoid this issue.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Breaking news

Just a friendly reminder for everyone to be careful. While the ongoing events are no doubt tragic, we need to ensure only confirmed facts make it on Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a news site. My thoughts are with all those affected tonight. --Fold 1997 (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)