Jump to content

Talk:Stamford Bridge (stadium)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page move

[edit]

I have reverted the cut and paste move of this page to Stamford Bridge Stadium. Tot he anonymous user that moved it - please do not move pages by cut and paste as it causes the edit history to be lost. See Help:Renaming (moving) a page for instructions. If there is a problem with this, or if the move is controversial, then list the page on Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Vclaw 11:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names

[edit]

Added clarification as to who "Abramovich" and "Mourinho" are. Also, links to surnames replaced with links to articles about each person respectively 217.205.198.23 10:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move ?

[edit]

Any objection if I move this to Stamford Bridge (stadium) (properly, obviously) and make this a disambiguation page? Morwen - Talk 11:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pics of East and West stand

[edit]

The layout of the two stand pics looks a bit clunky. It might just be my browser (firefox 1.5.05 on linux) rendering it in a weird way, but I doubt it. I had a go at fixing it, but that just made it worse. Anyone else want to have a go at improving it? --Apyule 12:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West stand contradiction

[edit]

The west stand section says that it has 3 tiers as well as saying that construction was stopped after only 1 was built. Can anyone clear this up? Thanks, --Apyule 13:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the point about construction halting after the first tier was built because of planning difficulties is true (and no source has been given), the hiccup was only very brief, as the stand was complete in three tiers only a few seasons after work began. Even if true, this bit of information is of no current or continuing interest sufficient to justify a place in an encyclopaedia article. I have deleted it. Chelseaboy 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. --Apyule 10:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't the profile of the East stand retained for the new stands?

[edit]

This has concerned me for a while. The ground looks a bit disjointed, with tiers starting and finishing at different levels, and with little apparent attempt at harmonizing the overall look.

Is there a specific reason why the existing profile of the East stand could not have been continued all the way round the ground? Is it a strange or problematic tier formation? I appreciate the East Stand is HUGE and it may not have been practical to create such a large, three tiered "bowl", but surely things could have been made slightly more co-ordinated than they are?

- it was said in the last few months by Chelsea that modern safety standards would require any replacement stand built on the site to use a lower angle for the stepping than the current east stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.175.151 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stamford Bridge.JPG

[edit]

Image:Stamford Bridge.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity

[edit]

The page says it was the largest ground before Emirates - how is that possible with a capacity of around 42K only?

67.98.226.14 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest in London. SteveO 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the capacity is listed as over 50,000 when it is in fact 42,055 (as cited here http://www.chelseafc.com/page/HistoryDetail/0,,10268~1328575,00.html). The West Stand seats around 13,500, not 20 odd thousand as listed. The overall capacity is also incorrectly stated here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_stadia_by_capacity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.17.83 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The capacities are a mess. As are many stadiums on wikipedia, using sources that contradict each other, or no sources at all. Chelsea's official page on the present day stadium shows 41,623, the Premier League claim it's 41,798, this article uses 41,837 (no source) and if you add up the capacities listed for each stand on this article, you get over 64,000! No point editing it since having done that before, my edit to another stadium page got revert because the public sources all disagree. Bertcocaine (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damn this stadium

[edit]

They've defeated fenerbahce... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.165.169 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos on Flickr

[edit]

Just an inform: I went on tour to Stamford Bridge this summer and my photos are here on Flickr. If someone like one of them, he can upload it on Commons whit the respective Flickr license. Just let me know, please.--Andrea 93 (msg) 11:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA stadium categories

[edit]

In this article, the UEFA stadium categorie of Stamford Bridge is not precised.

63.216.100.39 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge

[edit]

Is there any specific bridge related to the stadium? Beyond495 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The stadium took its name from the bridge where Fulham Road crosses the railway immediately to the South East of the site. A bridge has been positioned there for hundreds of years. Before the railway was built, a tributary of the Thames river, called 'Counters Creek', later fashioned into the 'Kensington Canal' flowed there. That was diverted into underground pipes and resurfaces as 'Chelsea Creek' entering the Thames by the old Lots Road Power Station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:149B:AC00:F1ED:ED16:A79:FBDC (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



The stadium is pretty much unquestionably the primary topic (and I know other stuff exists), so I think the disambiguation page should be changed to "Stamford Bridge (disambiguation)" so that the stadium can be called "Stamford Bridge" rather than "Stamdford Bridge (stadium)" - Unreal7 22:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Even if the doctrine of "primary topic" could usefully be applied in this case, we would need solid evidence that a stadium named "Stamford Bridge" qualified. Surely the world at large will assume that it is a bridge, or perhaps a normal place name, as in Stamford Bridge, East Riding of Yorkshire which is listed at Stamford Bridge (currently a DAB page). Better to keep the existing precision, which prevents any possible confusion without any cost whatsoever.
I am left wondering what motivates this RM. What benefit is envisaged?
NoeticaTea? 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's not a bridge, it's not the battle, it's not the most encyclopedic topic (per Avatar decision) 70.24.244.198 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Noetica's reasons. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ditto Noetica. NJZombie (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First, there is a cost to leaving this article here. That is this: everyone looking for the stadium by searching for "Stamford bridge" will be taken to the dab page rather than straight to the article about the stadium. Of the various uses on the dab page, the article about the stadium is the most popular, achieving almost 35,000 views in March[1]. But it did not dominate as much as I expected. The best of the rest is Battle of Stamford Bridge, which got about 13,000 views[2]. That's a bit too significant to ignore, in my view, though the opposite argument could surely be made. In the end, both articles are of high quality and are substantive. Leaving the dab page here probably serves our readers best in this case, but it's far from a slam dunk. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a slam dunk. Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who could argue with such unassailable logic! Powers T 19:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

The North Stand

[edit]

There was a small stand on north-east part of the ground until the late 1960's/early 1970's called the North Stand. Does anyone have any information on this (when built & demolished e.g.)? Barney Bruchstein (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to when the new nort-east stand was built up. I visited "the shield" in November 1976, at that time had the three tier stand existed for a few years. I'm not certain , but I think the demolition was made after the 1972/73 season. The new stand was moved a few meters to the south-west (due to the running-/ greyhound-/ speedway- tracks, but also moved around 25 meters to the north (parallell to the pitch), the player entry was for quite a few years afterwards not at the middle of the pitch. Economic crisis prevented the club to continue the re-building of the whole stadium for may years. Chelsea was also relegated to what then was "division 2" (They played there during the 1976/77 season, I watched Chelsea vs Charlton in a mid-week game, in November 1976, I was 12 at that time). And though Chealsea came back quickly, they were far away from the great clubs during the second half of the 1970's and the entire 1980's. I remember (from a Swedish sport paper) that an American wanted to build a huge parking lot instead of the stadium. How true that was, I don't know, but I can assure you of the fact that I have read such a newspaper notice a long time ago now. (perhaps someone could trace a source ?) Boeing720 (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The small North Stand was still there when I attended a game in 1974. I'm fairly sure it was demolished shortly after the East Stand was opened, which I think was later that year. Britmax (talk)

File:Middx v NZ 1905.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Middx v NZ 1905.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Middx v NZ 1905.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Access

[edit]

Re local stations and trains - London Overground is a National Rail service which serves both West Brompton and Imperial Wharf. The listing also ignores Southern Railway which runs on the same route serving the same two stations, the two services' routes varying further away from the area. I would correct it but I'll probably mess up the tables.MBRZ48 (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1066?

[edit]

The stadium was built in 1066? Was this before of after the arrival of Billy I?

It needs a disambig tag. Valetude (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened with photo ?

[edit]

I took a photo from the Swedish Encyklopedia Nordisk Familjebok, third edition (1924-1937 17 volumes + another three supplementary volumes 1937- (summer of) 1939. The article "Fotboll", or "Football" in English is illustrated by one singe image only. And this was a clear aerial photography of Stamford Bridge, during a match in the late 1920's or early 1930's. I think it was even better than any of the other b/w photos, as the stadium is jam packed around the oval stadium. On the north-eastern long side is a covered stand, where "CHELSEA FOOTBALL CLUB" easily can be read. I wonder why it was removed. I think it was better than any of the three present old photograpies. And please note - it was published in Sweden as a "photographical work" (rather than "newspaper") and since the photographer is unknown, Swedish copyright laws allows such pictures to be published after 70 years. And the very last volume of this encyclopedia was printed in 1939. So it is Public Domain at the very least from 1.January.2010. Just the fact that the editors of this encyclopedia chose this photo in order to illustrate football, ought to be of some credit to Chelsea FC. I guess this picture was chosen due to the massive crowd gathered, which appears to be around the attendance record for Chelsea FC, around 80,000. And I can't help thinking that it's the best of the old pictures in this article. (It kind of "says the most" (of our pictures in this article). If someone can explain why it's removed, then I would appriciate the answer very much. Boeing720 (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stamford Bridge (stadium). 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) 17:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stamford Bridge (stadium). 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) 06:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct owners of the stadium.

[edit]

Hi fellow wikipedians,

I’ve taken the liberty to change the “owners” of Stamford Bridge to “Chelsea Pitch Owners” in the article, as that is correct. Yet I’ve seen in the history log (and saw a wrong edit today) many edits changing the “owners” to “Fulham FC” or something similar, which is a straight lie. I’m getting tired of seeing this, and will not spent every day checking and correcting it. Mails have been sent to the Wikipedia team.

I can verify by source that it’s “Chelsea Pitch Owners” who owns Stamford Bridge; https://www.chelseafc.com/en/cpo and not “Fulham FC” or “Fulham Football Club”. Fulham has NEVER had anything thing to do with the stadium. Furthermore; at the bottom of this link;https://www.chelseafc.com/en/cpo/the-longer-history-and-legal-documents you’ll find 2 legal documents further contributing to my claim about the correct ownership.

Mike “Mikserinho” Christensen.

That's not strictly true. I was told that Gus Mears had Stamford Bridge built for Fulham but when they declined to move from Craven Cottage formed Chelsea to use it. But that was a long time ago. Britmax (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Britmax; Stamford Bridge was never built for Fulham. Mears made an offer for them to play at the bridge, but after they refused Chelsea came to life. At first it was used as an athletics stadium. “ The ground was opened in 1877, but for first decades only athletics were played here. It was in 1905 that Chelsea was founded by owners of the venue at that time after Fulham refused to move in. ”

That's interesting, thanks. Britmax (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Stamford Bridge (stadium\" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Stamford Bridge (stadium\ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21 § Stamford Bridge (stadium\ until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stamford_Bridge_(stadium)&oldid=1209582458"