Talk:Broadhurst Park

Facebook petitions

There are currently links to a number of online Facebook petitions on this page. This breeches WP:LINKSTOAVOID on three separate points. Point 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions", point 6 "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content" and point 10 "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." I have removed these links accordingly.86.181.167.40 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. I look away from the article for a day and how much vandalism has occurred? Jeez... It would be good to include that there has been a mixed response from moston residents but I'm wondering what source would actually be reliable. Obviously Facebook is not a good source. Delusion23 (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias in the article

This is a highly contentious issue. There is considerable opposition to the scheme from local residents. You will note that the proposed name of the stadium has recently been changed from the FC United Stadium to the Moston Community Stadium, which might tend to give the impression that it is a municipal concern, whereas it is a commercial one. There are implications for Moston Juniors that are not explained in full here. Local and regional party politics and funding issues are also playing a part, and are not gone into in depth.

I do not intend to alter or vandalise this article, but it should be noted that it gives a very limited picture of the actual situation. I do not live in the immediate area and have no direct interest in the outcome, but I fear the article has been put on Wikipedia as a PR exercise by those who favour the scheme. In my view Wikipedia is being used by a lobby, and I would suggest that this article be treated with extreme caution. Hengistmate (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not vandalising the article, though all you need to do to "balance" out the article is add a section on criticism, though of course it would need to be properly referenced. The article was moved to "Moston Community Stadium" as this is the official name at the moment, as seen in the references. I know there are some articles in the MEN that have referred to local opposition, so a section can be added that uses them as references. Delusion23 (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've started a section on local views criticising and supporting the new stadium. Hopefully these sections can be expanded :) Delusion23 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It just happens that a very old frend of mine who is a journalist lives in the area. Because of his profession he knows many of the local Council Members involved, both for and anti the scheme. There are more layers to this than to the average onion. One aspect is the apparent fact that the plan will reduce the number of pitches available to Moston Juniors. FC United themselves describe the name "Moston Community Stadium" as "tentative," and it seems to have emerged earlier this year, 7 or 8 months after the initial application. Of course, most of the politicking takes place in camera and therefore does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. It seems to me that FC United have quite cleverly taken advantage of the fact and that the article is part of a charm offensive. Let us say that pressure is being applied in certain quarters in respect of some people's political futures. Of course, what is reported in the newspapers does qualify for Wikipedia, but how unbiased are the newspaper reports? There does appear to be a campaign in progress as regards letters to the local press and the Manchester Evening News. My friend has pointed out that some very active members of the pro lobby live in Oldham, a long way from the Ronald Johnson Playing Fields. I have deep misgivings about this article, and don't believe that Wikipedia should be manipulated in this way.

Hengistmate (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has not been put on here or named by FC United. I can confirm this as the main contributor to the article, I did not create it but I moved it when the new name was revealed as I believed this would eventually be the WP:Common Name. I will admit that I am an FC United fan and for the scheme but I hoped this would not come through in the article. I'm grateful for the pointing out of biases that may have crept in. I'm merely finding info and putting it into the article otherwise it would end up on the FC United article instead. There's been plenty of vandalism of this article by anti-stadium IPs and users (see here: [1], [2]) and pro-users (see here: [3]). Eventually all arguments about "it will cause traffic and we'll lose green space" or "it will improve sports facilities and community spirit in the area" ended up being removed so that the article wouldn't be used as a forum for either campaign. I've been basing the format on other proposed stadiums (Gateshead F.C. new stadium, New Bridgend stadium, Stadium for Cornwall) i.e. simply talking about what the plans are, where it would be built, what the background info is. This article is now the only one with pro and anti arguments on it. The MEN seems to be the only reliable source reporting on this feud so I've added them in now. Previously Anti-stadium users were using the article to promote their facebook campaign so this had to be removed. True that there is a lot happening in the background that can't meet wikipedia's referencing standards (e.g. things that happen behind closed doors, whether newspapers are biased) but we can say that about any article, not just this one. As it stood the article simply explained what the stadium proposal was. If you'd like to propose its move back to "New F.C. United of Manchester stadium" then follow this link: WP:RM. Cheers. Delusion23 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Johnson

Two points of information:

1) Ronald Johnson lived in Woodleigh, Dunham Massey (not Woodley, which is miles from Dunham Massey). He left his shares in the family business to the factory workers at the Moston factory. Given that there were some 2,000 at the time, they could not easily be distributed and the dividends would have been worth nothing to each individual. It was therefore agreed (between the then factory workers and Ronald's two surviving brothers) to sell the shares and buy farmland next to the factory for all the beneficiaries to enjoy. It has always been called the Ronald Johnson Playing Fields in memory if his gift and as a memorial to the many young men from the area who died serving our country.

2) The name of the land is the Ronald Johnson Playing Fields and the covenant on the land may require that it becomes the Ronald Johnson Stadium. It has got to be better than naming it after a corporate sponsor and it would be an opportunity for Moston children to learn about and take pride in their local history. As well as reminding us of how precious our freedom is, they might learn that the neighbouring housing estate played an important part of Manchester's industrial history; it used to be a factory where the cables that first went under the atlantic were produced.

From the great great niece of Ronald Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.200.183 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

New Development

I hope that this development will quickly be added to the article: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1471409_storm-as-manchester-council-offers-fc-united-a-500k-loan-towards-new-moston-stadium Hengistmate (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Moston Community Stadium → Proposed F.C. United of Manchester Stadium Project – This proposed development is a stadium for FC United of Manchester. It cannot be called Moston Community Stadium, because the title is "tentative," and the stadium does not exist. This title was introduced many months after the initial application; the role of the stadium is contentious, and its likely availability to the community is disputed locally. If the stadium is built it will be a private concern, not a "community" project in the normally accepted sense of the term. Opponents maintain that the name "Moston Community Stadium" was contrived in an attempt to create a more favourable impression. Delusion23 cannot argue that the name will "eventually be the WP:Common Name"; it has to exist in order to have a Common Name. At present this scheme is The Proposed FC United of Manchester Stadium Project. Hengistmate (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would disagree with the last point - WP:COMMONNAME deals with anything, even things that haven't been built yet. For instance, we have an article at Bering Strait crossing, even though it hasn't been built yet and won't be built any time soon, simply because more sources use that name for the potential infrastructure, compared to other possible names. So: What name do sources prefer for this stadium project? bobrayner (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'd like to echo the point made by bobrayner in that your interptretation of WP:COMMONNAME is a bit off regarding future buildings. The name that FC United use in their literature is usually Moston Community Stadium Facility. However, this is unlikely to be the eventual name of the stadium if it gets built as there will probably be a members' vote on what to name it and the WP:COMMONNAMES currently used by fans are Lightbowne Road or Broadhurst Park. The current name is actually more likely to be covered by WP:OFFICIALNAME. If it weren't for FC refering to the new ground as the "Moston Community Stadium" I'd say there are no other real titles we could use apart from "Proposed F.C. United of Manchester stadium". The thing that bothers me is the attempted countering of my supposed arguments before I've even replied to your proposal. In addition to this is your wanting to remove the words "community" and (the more uncontroversial) "Moston". It all just screams WP:POINT. The use of the word "community" in a proposed stadium name is hardly rare, and if instead the title of "New Moston Stadium" were used it would get confused with New Moston. The current title suits its purpose, and can be replaced once either a name has been decided, or the entire project falls through and FC have to find a new part of Manchester. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - no reason for "stadium" or "project" to have capital letters in the proposed title....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - plus as various users have mentioned, stadium and project would not be capitalised. Per Delusion23, the current title suits the purpose and doesn't have to be permanent. Furthermore, on the current facts, the proposed "new name" is not called for. Cloudz679 21:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why "Broadhurst"?

The article doesn't explain where the word "Broadhurst" comes from - is it the name of the area? --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"By 1900 Moston became part of the City of Manchester and in 1919 Sir Edward Tootal Broadhurst wrote to the chairman of the Parks Committee of Manchester Corporation offering the gift of some 80 acres of land for the establishment of playing fields and a park as 'a thank-you offering for the victory of the allies' following the first world war. The only stipulation was the area should not be developed for housing. This land lay between St Mary's Road, Nuthurst Road, Moston Lane and 'a Dingle', namely Dean Clough. The land was conveyed to the Corporation on 23 July 1920, and soon afterwards Broadhurst Park came into existence." From here. That would be E. Tootal Broadhurst. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'll expect to see FC United playing Tootal football then. --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mr Stephen (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 15:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been waiting for a review far too long, so I'll take a look at it. Wizardman 15:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• I don't see a need for the two fair use images, especially since the park has now been built and is now open. If you can provide a stronger claim then maybe one would be okay.  Done I have removed the image of the current ground as a free image could be taken instead. I have kept the Ten Acres Lane photo as this stadium was never built and so can only be illustrated with the non-free image per fair use. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Double check that F.C. United is consistent throughout, as opposed to FC United. I caught one and fixed it myself, but there might've been some i missed.  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• For the history section, perhaps make it a little clearer that we're talking about the history of the grounds themselves, rather than the stadium. Starting off with WWI-era history on something that broke ground in 2013 confused me at first.  Done Renamed section and added opening sentence. If any more needs doing for this, let me know. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'd link Section 106 to the appropriate act, so those unfamiliar (me) can understand what it is.  Done linked to Town and Country Planning Act 1990#Part III, Control Over Development Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Broadhurst Park also has a 3G pitch and two grass pitches adjacent to it, as training and community facilities" reword to "..as well as training and..."  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing too major to fix. I'll put the article on hold and will pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman 17:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the swift review. I have attempted to rectify all the issues. Hope you have a Happy New Year :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. The copyedits after yours helped as well with a couple sentences that, while I didn't note them, were a bit iffy. As such I'll pass the article. Wizardman 22:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested Rename

The current name is ambiguous as there is confusion WP:DESCRIPDIS with the article about the large public park which surrounds the stadium to the north, south and east, from which the stadium gets its name.Broadhurst Park (public park) I suggest changing the name of this site to Broadhurst Park (stadium).Sophiriel (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added a disambiguating note to the top of this article with this edit. I'd suggest that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and so there is no reason to create a disambiguation page or move this one. Cheers, Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)