Talk:Old Trafford

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 Tafford 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)

Capacity varies due to allocation and segregation.

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)

I imagine it is raised to aid irrigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.246.169 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2016 (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 Venue

Soccer Aid venue 2006, 2010-Present

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.246.169 (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old Trafford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311060934/http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1915.html to http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1915.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old Trafford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927181714/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1431145.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1431145.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Rugby league list

There was a huge, detailed list of rugby league test matches added to this article. This shouldn't be here because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an almanac or yearbook. Also, international rugby league at this stadium had been summed up in prose in the same section, as is advisable. This ground is, of course, best known for football and there isn't and shouldn't be lists of all its England matches or cup finals where prose is sufficient for the average reader.

User:Fleets should explain his edits in summaries when others take the effort to. I have only seconds ago warned him for edit warring over an image on Sadio Mané where he is not offering any explanation there.

Also pinging regular editor User:PeeJay2K3 for an opinion.

Harambe Walks (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Rugby League has been used for GFs and landmark test matches. It is, along with Wembley, one of a very select band of rubgy league grounds that are embedded within rugby league, without being owned by a rugby league club. We should not limit the article to what it is primarily used for, nor assert undue notability, but it is without doubt that OT is a very significant ground in the world of rugby league.Fleets (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No one is limiting what the article can cover, but a list of matches that can only grow in future is not necessary or encyclopaedic. – PeeJay 08:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You certainly wouldn't mind me taking this to the RL project. You seem like a reasonable person, but given your football and rugby union links it would seem best to take it there, just to see. I can understand your position though, although league seems to be lost in the mix now, rather than it being a distinct space within the article.Fleets (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A detailed list of every rugby match played at the stadium is really not needed. Kante4 (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Will move to include RL in the other uses section, as that was the controversial removal, not necessarily the test matches.Fleets (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Rugby league is already mentioned in the "Other uses" section, with greater prominence than rugby union, I might add. – PeeJay 10:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As it's own sub-heading, and agreed, you are right to add that.Fleets (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Then no, I don't think it warrants its own subheading. – PeeJay 14:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So Rugby League has a greater prominence, but yet it gets lumped in with other uses. I'm not sure it definitively deserves it's own heading or sub-heading, but is it more chronological issues or other technical issues that have kicked it to the gutter?Fleets (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Prominence is not solely indicated by the section hierarchy. Rugby league is given a proportionate amount of coverage in this article to its prominence in the history of Old Trafford. Feel free to bring this to WP:FOOTY as well as WP:RL, but I disagree with giving rugby league disproportionate coverage. – PeeJay 19:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That is more than likely true and the volume within the existing section does show the proportional prominence, but you can certainly understand my position, given that there was previously a sub-heading and now there is not one.Fleets (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The only reason there was a subheading before was to house a table that no longer exists on the page. – PeeJay 06:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Guess I was fishing with that olive branch to close this off, but no worries little fella.Fleets (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to be glib. I told you you should raise this at WP:FOOTY and WP:RL - have you? – PeeJay 09:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I was happy with your reasoning, just the tone was a little arseholish, to coin a phrase. For that you got glib back. Then again I'm sure you weren't going for cold or austistic, simply just laying the facts down as you saw them and ignoring the rest of the sentence. That is why you got a little potential glibbery as an exchange.Fleets (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't going for cold and autistic, that's just the way I was made. Cheers though. – PeeJay 18:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it in good spirits and taking it in the manner that it was intended.Fleets (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Old Trafford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091031091519/http://www.rl1908.com/Kangaroos/1986.htm to http://www.rl1908.com/Kangaroos/1986.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080531070912/http://origin-www.rlwc2008.twiihosting.net/about/pastwinners.aspx?article=2000 to http://origin-www.rlwc2008.twiihosting.net/about/pastwinners.aspx?article=2000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410093323/http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/network_map/network_map.pdf to http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/network_map/network_map.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714233213/http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Consultations/Metrolink-Trafford-Park-Line/Pages/Wharfside.aspx to http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Consultations/Metrolink-Trafford-Park-Line/Pages/Wharfside.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old Trafford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/network/2_manchester_south.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502231602/http://www.stagecoachbus.com/timetables.aspx?serviceid=280&locationId=109&from=&to=&locval=31 to http://www.stagecoachbus.com/timetables.aspx?serviceid=280&locationId=109&from=&to=&locval=31

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old Trafford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521211656/http://www.metrolink.co.uk/stationinfo/results/index.asp?station=Old+Trafford to http://www.metrolink.co.uk/stationinfo/results/index.asp?station=Old+Trafford

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old Trafford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130103205150/http://www.london2012.com/venue/old-trafford/ to http://www.london2012.com/venue/old-trafford/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Capacity is higher than stated

Considering Manchester United’s attendance against various teams this season 2017/18 in the premiership has been over 75,000 then this would suggest the figure currently stated is too low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.93.196 (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed against Everton, the attendance was 75,042 thus will change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.84.176 (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you know what the actual capacity is? If not, I wouldn't change it. – PeeJay 11:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Charlton stand (Main stand)

There are no dates on this section. The stand is partially old. It does not state what parts, and when it was gradually extended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.206.36 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

UEFA stadium category

I came across Otkritie Arena, whose Infobox contains:

UEFA Category 4 Stadium

Surely Old Trafford also is Cat. 4 - although UEFA stadium categories suggests that UEFA doesn't publish lists of qualifying stadia (bizarrely).

Should / could / would we want to add 4* to this OT article?

Trafford09 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It may be fair to assume Old Trafford’s status as a Category 4 status, but unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn’t work on assumptions and we shouldn’t add this info without a source. – PeeJay 11:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thx; I guess I feared that would be the case; ah well. Trafford09 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Trafford09:@PeeJay2K3: Regarding sourcing this, the source I gave is the one used on List of European stadiums by capacity, and regards to other stadium's pages they don't source the stadium catagory. It's quite obvious that Old Trafford is a four star stadium, and I'm sure that this information could be indirectly sourced by providing sources for the criteria as given on UEFA stadium categories. Mn1548 (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why I didn't respond to this before, but here goes: you can provide all the sources you like that Old Trafford meets the criteria as an elite category stadium (or whatever terminology UEFA are using now), but unless you can prove that it has indeed been accredited as such, it doesn't matter. We have no idea whether it is the case that a stadium simply has to meet the criteria to be considered elite or if UEFA has to officially certify it as such, so until we can find an actual list of these stadiums published by UEFA (not some website doing exactly the same guesswork as you), any attempt to classify them as elite on our part is moot. – PeeJay 22:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I was genuinely surprised when quickly looking into this that UEFA seem to explicitly not publish a list of stadiums that they grant each category to - they used to, but haven't done so since they moved to the current system. None of the websites that list stadiums seem to have any better source other than "looking at the regulations and assuming". ~ mazca ^talk 22:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Star rating

The other uefa four star rated teams, such as the Bernabeu and the Camp Nou, have a 4 star icon underneath their picture. I’m fairly sure Old Trafford falls into this category so not sure why it doesn’t also have the icon. DeclanLukeOGara (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ignore this, just seen that there was already a discussion about it. DeclanLukeOGara (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Future section

Information to be added or removed: Remove: The stadium's provision for disabled fans is below standards required by regulations. Add: An £11 million investment into upgrading the accessibility facilities in the stadium is underway. This development will create 118 new wheelchair positions and 158 new amenity seats in a variety of areas around the stadium, including a new purpose-built concourse at the back of the Stretford End. Explanation of issue: The information is out of date. References supporting change: https://www.manutd.com/en/visit-old-trafford/accessibility-plans https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-united-spend-11m-double-17573771 https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/delegation-in-old-trafford-to-review-new-accessibility-facilities https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/11264323/old-trafford-new-disabled-facilities/

Please note that I am a paid employee of Manchester United FC.

Tamla23 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

"would further increase the its capacity to 88,000"

109.175.155.98 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done – PeeJay 23:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Manchester United Football Ground railway station

I believe there hasn't been service to this station for a few years now, but the article says it's still in use on matchdays. Does that need correcting / removing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.129.6 (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

In the Transport section of this page, it highlights that the 53 bus service is operated by First Greater Manchester, in which it is now no longer the case. It is now served by Go North West. ItsKestrel (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Tenants field in infobox

It should be removed, the owner can't be the tenant! I looked at removing it and leaving that list below, but couldn't see how to remove it without removing the other list. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The “tenants” field is just poorly named. It’s supposed to give a list of the teams that play at the stadium, regardless of whether they own the venue. I’d work on changing the word used, not removing the list. – PeeJay 13:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

West Stand

West Stand wasn't the last to be covered, that was East Stand. West Stand wasn't all terraced, it had a small seating area in top right hand when facing it 2A02:C7C:60BF:8C00:785E:23B1:5764:83DF (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

Old Trafford is the FOURTEENTH largest stadium by capacity in Europe - (and not the eleventh as stated in the top paragraph of the page) 2A00:23C4:5387:3001:5CE9:5FC6:72D4:9DB4 (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Request to remove image of miniature Lego model of stadium

The article features the inclusion of a miniature Lego model of the stadium that needn't be included in the article. It adds nothing, and simply appears to be an image of a hobbyists model of the stadium. The image is also described as a "scale" model, which I would dispute as it is not an accurate, proportional replica of the stadium, it's simply a mini-Lego model. Further, the image description mentions a model-maker who doesn't appear to of particular prominence, and is, at the least, without a Wikipedia page of their own. 92.233.97.202 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the issue with this image. Someone overwrote the original photo (which was admittedly blurry) with one of an entirely different model. I've restored the original image. The model is definitely not made of Lego, and it was put on display at the Manchester United museum, so there's no reason to remove the image from this article. The notability of the artist is irrelevant to the encyclopaedic value of the image. – PeeJay 09:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I see.

Does a featured Wikipedia article really deserve a blurry picture?

I can’t see what the picture adds to the article? 92.233.97.202 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia relies on volunteers for all of its content. If this is the best picture of the model we can get, it will have to do, especially since I don't think the model is on display any more. That said, at the size the image is displayed at, the blurriness is barely noticeable. I will also add that I do think it's worth including, since the model itself is mentioned in the article. If you read, you'll see it was put on display for the 100th anniversary of Old Trafford's opening, and it's probably the best example of that special exhibition to put in this article. – PeeJay 00:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)