Talk:Celtic Park

Celtic Park has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 20, 2024.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: Scotland / Celtic Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Celtic F.C. task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

UEFA 5 Star

For further clarification- letter from UEFA, dated january 2006-

"Thank you for you request... as of January 2006, the following stadium have qualified for 5 star status...

AOL Arena Allianz Arena Amsterdam ArenA Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadyumu Camp Nou Ernst Happel Stadion Estadi Olímpic Lluís Companys Estádio do Dragão Feijenoord Stadion Hampden Park Ibrox Stadium Estádio José Alvalade Estádio da Luz Luzhniki Stadium Millennium Stadium Old Trafford (football) Olimpico Sevilla Olympic Stadium (Athens) Olympic Stadium (Berlin) Olympic Stadium (Munich) Santiago Bernabéu Stadium Stade de France Stadio Giuseppe Meazza Stadio Olimpico Sükrü Saracoglu Stadium Veltins-Arena Vicente Calderón Stadium Wembley Stadium"

Celtic park is not included in this list, and should be removed to keep the site accurate.

Please edit the page

To clear up the 5 Star issue I emailed UEFA for some general information on stadia a few months ago. They were prompt in their reply and sent me some .pdf files outlining stadia requirements as well as including a list of the stadia that had passed as 4-star and 5-star sent. This was sent direct from the UEFA media office about March '06 and Celtic Park was not included on the list then, and I see no reason why it would be included now. There are additions to this but all of these are "new build" (for example the Allianz Arena in Munich) and the categorisation of these has gone on over the course of the season. I've uploaded the relevant file here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/UEFA4and5starstadialist.pdf . I know that these things can be faked easily, however if you doubt the authenticity you can email UEFA yourself and will almost certainly receive the same documents in reply. The UEFA magazine article (that has been cited as evidence in the article) is simply mistaken. Red star 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Celtic THEMSELVES a full year after the article below was written Celtic "were trying to improve the stadium to meet UEFA 5 star status" http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2003_Report.pdf so Celtic themselves contradict the article below. I can confirm that UEFA have not awarded Celtic 5 star (or 4 star for that matter) status to the Parkhead stadium due to the current press box location and facilities. Please contact from within the UK +410 848 00 2727 UEFA Direct for more information.

According to UEFA [1], Celtic Park is a UEFA 5 Star stadium. Before anyone edits this entry, please cite a source. Bmpower 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is not not a credible source. The begining of the webpage states that "This list is not extensive!". As such the official UEFA page is the more reliable source. Bmpower 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please post a link for the official UEFA site then, that puts this at an end.

The official UEFA website is at UEFA News see the Scottish hospitality section. Bmpower 20:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be conflicting views. As far as I was aware there was an issue with the size of dressing rooms at Celtic park that prevented it getting 5 star status. http://www.hampdenpark.co.uk/about_hampden/history_page4.htm Bill the bear 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting source is this one from after the date of the UEFA quote: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5018568.html It appears Celtic had to do work to the stadium to get it upgraded and after that work it could be 5*. Is there any proof that the work was succesfully completed? I can find sources from Rangers website and the hampden website that confirms their 5* status the lack of evidence from Celtic themselves casts doubt on whether Celtic park has achieved this status.Bill the bear 22:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source above dated 22/08/2003 [3] the work was to be completeed in 2004. Still, the official UEFA webpage is considered the most reliable source. Jcmurphy 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can not consider UEFA site as it is older than a reliable article that showed the stadium not to be 5*. Bill the bear 23:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the UEFA site (no matter the date) is the most reliable source. After all it is UEFA that rates the stadiums. I dont think that news reports are as reliable as the official site of UEFA. There are lots of sites that say that Celtic Park is 5 Star e.g. [4] and site that say it is not. Therefore I would consider UEFA to be the best source of this. Jcmurphy 23:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've handed out two 3RR warnings over this. Please sort it out here before making any more changes to the article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr, haven't there been two changes to this today already? Where was the discusssion? Did I miss it? --TheMadTim 10:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I'll just change it without discussion too.--TheMadTim 10:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned this up ysterday - I have no idea for sure if it is a 5-star stadium or not, but I'd be reluctant to rely on stadiumguide.com. Among its errors, it calls Ibrox Stadium by its old name Ibrox Park. Can nobody find out one way or another?Hippo43 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it says 5 Star rated stadium on one UEFA article, do you honestly beleive that it must be a 5 Star stadium. You do know the guy who wrote it for UEFA could have made a simple mistake. As far as I'm concerned its not a 5 Star stadium, it's not even a 4 Star rated stadium. It has no rating because they are none below this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.117.9 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 31 May 2006

I cannot possibly imagine that the UEFA article could make a mistake like that. It is not as if it was a passing statement, but it explicitly says that Scotland has three 5* stadia. I cannot believe that this could be accidental - it is too explicit. DJR (Talk) 18:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is getting ridiculous - neither the Evening Times article (from 3 years ago) or a POV piece about Hampden (including the statement "there is not a ground in Britain that has comparable facilities") are reputable sources. While it may well be correct that Celtic Park is not a 5-star stadium, until someone provides a current, credible [UEFA?] source for this, it will remain unresolved. Simply saying 'I phoned UEFA and asked them' is not a reliable source. There needs to be some mention of the stadium's status in this article, even though it's unclear. Hippo43 11:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree it is ridiculous as we know for a fact that the one source that said that Celtic park was 5 star was definitely incorrect at the time of publication. There are no other sources that say Celtic park is 5 star, therefore it is not mentioned in the article. Why UEFA can't put a list on their website like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/UEFA4and5starstadialist.pdf, which they email out to anyone who enquires I do not know? --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 04:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the reason I think something needs to be in here about this is because some people will come looking for that info (i.e. whether it is or isn't). we need a source that is definitely correct now, not in 2003. If the situation is that Celtic are currently seeking to upgrade aspects of the stadium to make it 5-star, and this can be verified by current proper sources, then it should say so here. Hippo43 15:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if you can give a credible source, that is recent that shows this you could put it in the article. Good luck in finding it. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 15:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC poll

So, Bill the bear, are you going to provide any evidence of rigging, or even offer some reasoned arguments? I'm guessing not, and unless you surprise me I will be reverting back. I am the one who is citing a source, and the BBC is about as credible as you get, so the information is valid and belongs in the article. Gourlg9a 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, if Ibrox Park had won the poll, BB and co would be quite happy to cite it in that article... Camillus (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on you know it was rigged. Bill the bear 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence? In what way was it rigged? It was a phone-in poll (so I believe), so fans of all teams had an equal chance of participating. Where's the evidence to the contrary? Camillus (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know it was rigged by people multiple voting, but you just can't quite admit what everyone knows. Bill the bear 01:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence of multiple-voting? Even if it was the case, what's to stop fans of any other team multiple-voting? Camillus (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Celtics fans message board does not stretch this far back, I know it was rigged as I have seen discussions on forums about multiple voting on internet polls plus it is only human nature, you practically concede that it was rigged. The point is that there is nothing to stop multiple voting so most Internet polls are skewed. Self praise is the least rewarding. Bill the bear 01:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Celtic fans trying to nominate Neil Lennon as Sports Personality of the year, Scotland fans trying to get the bridge at Wembley called the Jim Baxter bridge. Internet Polls are no true indicator of public opinion. Message boards and forums such as Celtic Minded or Follow Follow ensure that a hardcore set of fans cast multiple votes, whilst the general public are often unaware of the pollBill the bear 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BB, the point is that, unless you have evidence to the contrary, we have to take these polls at face value. Short of conducting polls under the level of scrutiny of a General Election, there is always going to be the potential for a margin of error, but that does not entirely invalidate the result. I accept that Celtic fans certainly seem to have taken more of an interest in this poll, but that, again, doesn't invalidate it - if more labour voters choose to vote than conservatives in a general election, then labour will win, regardless of whether they have more support or not.

Although I have no inside knowledge of this particular poll, as a former contractor for BBC Information (the department responsible for the majority of audience contacts through all contact channels) I am well placed to state that the mechanisms that are in place for this type of event are reasonably robust. The article cited does not state whether voting was by phone/internet/webform, although I am fairly confident that a webform would have been used. No matter what the method of contact, measures to reduce 'lobby's' and multiple voting are in place - if its phone then CLI (caller line identification) is used, if it’s a internet poll with radio buttons then IP addresses are used (doubtful in this instance given the amount of sporting venues in the UK), and if it’s a webform then name, email address and IP address are used. None of these methods, of course, will entirely eliminate multiple votes, but they certainly monitor it to a reasonable level. So, just because you read on some fans forums that they were trying to cast multiple votes, in the vast majority of cases they would have been wasting their time and/or money.

However, the main point about this edit is that you cannot pick and choose what polls you feel are valid and which aren't. Polls are commonly cited in articles and it is unreasonable to constantly remove them just because your 'feeling' is that its incorrect. Both the Rangers and Celtic articles have a 'Greatest Team' section, as voted for by fans. Would it be reasonable for fans who disagree with the selection to remove it claiming it was rigged? Ok, in both cases this is unlikely to be a contentious issue, but the principle remains. If the accepted wikipedia convention is to cite polls from credible sources, then you can't edit them out when you don't like the results.

Lastly, in case you think this is due to some kind of Celtic bias, I would argue just as strongly for its validity if it related to Ibrox - my interest is in the integrity of articles relating to both sides of the old firm, not in any kind of points scoring between the old firm, as that kind of behaviour should be confined to fans forums and the pub. Gourlg9a 10:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No this is an encyclopaedia. Results of internet polls are unreliable sources and should not be included at all, anywhere. Bill the bear 11:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with screens?

Sorry, but what's the significance of:

There are two large screens inside the ground for showing highlights and replays on matchdays,
but these screens cannot be switched off as the electronics are in series, and it would cost
Celtic a large sum of money to switch them on and off regularly.

I just don't understand this edit. Is it a problem that the screens can't be switched off? Wasted electricity? Wasted money? The bit about "the electronics are in series", may be of interest to electricians I guess, I don't know. As currently worded, this is just a rather boring factoid - like going to a page about, say, Alex Ferguson, and being told that he has a bad habit of leaving his telly on stand-by? Camillus (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Republic of Ireland

I have removed the passage on the flag of the Irish Republic. The passage was tendentious, unsourced material and not about the football ground as such. It seeks to take the article away from objective information about the stadium itself and in a controversial direction e.g. with the unsubstantiated (not to mention highly unlikely-sounding) claim that Glasgow City Council plan to force Celtic to remove the Irish flag and replace it with the Union flag if Glasgow's Commonwealth Games bid is successful. BBO 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly with the contentious claim that the flag of the Republic of Ireland is to be replaced by "the flag of the British Monarchy" (whatever that means - it could be the Lion Rampant flag in Scotland).

BBO 08:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer if you stuck a "fact" tag on it rather than remove it (unless you did that already) cheers.--Vintagekits 09:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size

"It is the second largest football stadium in Scotland by capacity, after Murrayfield Stadium in Edinburgh, and the fourth-largest in the United Kingdom after Old Trafford, Wembley and Millennium Stadium"

How can it be the forth largest in the UK if it is smaller than Murrayfield, Old Trafford, Wembley and the Millennium Stadium. I might not have a CSE in maths, but surely that makes it the fifth largest. I shall change it to that effect.

Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The capacity shown here is also wrong. Celtic parks true capacity is 60,832. Chris6790 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the league says (60,411). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leitch?

According to Simon Inglis' "Engineering Archie" Archibald Leitch designed Celtic Park in Belfast but I can't find any evidence of him building the one in Parkhead either in that book or on-line.

The kerrydale street website lists Duncan and Kerr as the engineers who built the stand originally in 1929, which was then significantly redesigned in 1971.

http://www.kerrydalestreet.com/page/Celtic+Park+-Timeline

If this is correct the list of Leitchs' projects also needs corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.212.14 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't seem to be working, do you have an up to date one? JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 14:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inglis' Football Grounds of Britain says that the main stand was designed by Duncan and Kerr, who also worked on Firhill Stadium. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion may be because, according to Inglis, Duncan (of Duncan and Kerr) had been a key employee of Leitch and the stand was (therefore?) reminiscent of Leitch work, even though it wasn't a Leitch as such. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Celtic Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
~~Just the few minor comments below.~~ Fixed

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
I can't read the Herald articles for some reason but I'll AGF that the info cited to them is there.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Minor issues resolved - Passing this one

Comments

It says the rent was increased from £50 to £450 but was this per week, per month or per year? Same with the Hampden Park rent later on. Best just to make it clear.
- I would guess per annum on the first, but the source material isn't clear on this point. The second is per annum. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I thought INglis would have mentioned in his book that it was per annum. I've added another ref for it now. Adam4267 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Celtic Park was an elongated oval shape, similar to Hampden Park." - this sentence seems out of place to me after a paragraph about capacity and record attendances but not sure where else it could go
"Writing in 1996, Simon Inglis noted that the approaches to the Main Stand is an area of urban deprivation "reminiscent of Belfast during the Troubles". - the approaches ... is; can you just fix this so the verb matches the subject

If you can just have a look at these comments and fix them I'll be happy to pass this as GA. Cheers, Big Dom 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all the issues fixed now. Adam4267 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this passes the GA criteria now. Good work, Big Dom 01:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Nathan McSeveney

Is it worth mentioning this recent tragedy in the article, seeing as (thank God) fatal accidents at British football stadiums are extremely rare nowadays? '''tAD''' (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON. If it was just a tragic accident, there isn't much relevance to the fact it happened at this stadium. If (say) the authorities find that there was some safety feature that could prevent a similar incident in future, then there would be some wider significance. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Celtic Park. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Celtic Park. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Article appears vandalized. Can someone more experienced with the topic please revert this? Thanks. Stainless Steel Stalinism (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]