Talk:Stanley Park Stadium

message: I thought the new Liverpool stadium was going to be called Anfield as well?
As did I  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.27.118 (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes because sponsors are well known for donating anonymously, I'm sure they won't insist on the name including their brand.. Sorry to be mocking but it's probably best you crash to Earth now rather than later. Bertcocaine (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name?

message: The article gives both Feb 2003 and 8th December 2006 as the decision date for planning permission.
The liverpool council website:
http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/environment/planning/mvm_explorer.asp
Gives 11 April 2006 as the decision date for application 03F/3214 which is the application for the stadium. The likelihood is that all three dates are correct for different parts of the planning process but the ambiguity needs clearing up.
--Williham 12:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision Date 

message: What's all this talk of capacity approaching 80,000? As I understand it, we've got planning permission for a 60,000 seater stadium, and there are discussions going on with the city authorities to expand it to something in the seventies (possibly involving the opening of a rail link - transport seems to be the sticking point), but 81,000? As far as I can tell this is based on nothing but rumours.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.29.168 (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capacity 

message: I have removed all of the NPOV language littering the page, and have hopefully got it back on track.
I cannot find any genuine criticism of the new stadium design from any reputable published source, and as such have removed the section entirely.  Please do not return it to the text without providing sources - it is simply not enough for you to believe something to be true, you really do have to convince all Wikipedians that what you write is true by backing it up with evidence.
I think that further revision of the NPOV and personal criticisms of the design without sourcing would be vandalism, and I will ask an administrator to protect the article.  A huge number of news outlets, students and individuals will come to this page first when researching the new stadium.  Misrepresenting personal views at the expense of fact does no-one a service.Mwmonk 15:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redraft of this article 

message: Such a prospective idea does not deserve such prominent placement in the article. Liverpool bosses have not even expressed an interest in the deal. It is merely one minor aspect of a stadium discussion which the results of have not yet been mentioned in the press. I'm moving it into the body of the text. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 13:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlsberg Anfield 

message: I've removed this paragraph:
"The stadium would be anchored by an expanded 18,500-seat standalone Kop, an increase of more than 5,000 seats. The parabolic roof of the Kop stand is designed to focus the supporters' volume towards the pitch. The stadium is arranged in a traditional 4 stand configuration, bringing supporters closer to the pitch than in modern bowl stadia. If it had been built in time and England had been chosen to host the 2018 World Cup,  the stadium could have been used to host matches at the tournament."
For these reasons:
*The stadium isn't "anchored" by one side ( or in the case of the Kop one end).
*Capacity and increase of same need sourcing.
*Parabolic design needs sourcing, with the reasons.
*"If it had been built in time..."  If we had some fish, we could have some fish and chips, if we had some chips. A paragraph of total speculative waffle. Britmax (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph removed