Talk:MetLife Stadium

message: Why are people reversing the order in which the New York Giants and the New York Jets appear in the article?  Does it really matter who comes first?  In my opinion, whichever franchise was established first, that's who gets listed first.  Sound reasonable? Kjscotte34 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The 50/50 partnership gives each team an equal claim to be listed first, so zealous Giants/Jets fans will be eager to have their team listed first.  Either one would be correct.  You could argue the listing order in any number of ways.  Alphabetical might make the most fair sense, which also aligns with your franchise establishment date argument.  But we just might have to accept frequent changes.--MikeUMA (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously.... 

message: As silly as the name is, according to press releases AND the official team website, the stadium name is "New Meadowlands Stadium," not "Meadowlands Stadium."  The article title should probably be changed.  From what I understand, this will continue to be the title this season, until naming rights are secured.  I propose that the main title should be called "New Meadowlands Stadium" with "Meadowlands Stadium" obviously re-directing to the article.  Thoughts on the name aside, it is the official name.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, a rename seems appropriate.--MikeUMA (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

text: *Support.  It is the official name at this time.  Whether or not the name is bizarre or not (will it be "New" in 10 years?) is irrelevant.  Me Three (talk to me) 14:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Meadowlands Stadium: proposed name change 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.   ascidian | talk-to-me 16:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Is there a reason that the Mexico vs Equador football (soccer) friendly is not mentioned? It was on 7 May 2010, and is included in one of the sources. Crazydude22 (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other events 

message: The stadia are both municipal owned according to the narrative, but since the old was built with public and the latter with private funds I infer that public support like financing help may mean it wasn't a typical private commercial project.  The two teams are separate profit-making companies so are there any sources to indicate they entered into a partnership agreement for the stadium or do they have a joint lease or do they have separate leases each with the same terms or do they each lease separate oofices and lockers but have a joint lease as cotenants for the playing surface.  Short of that, the language of 50/50 is both misleading and overbroad. 10:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Partnership]] is a formal [[contract]]ual relationship, not accurate to use 50/50 language 

message: Is that random line about the executive chef in the opening section appropriate?  It just seems awkward to me. Kjscotte34 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executive chef 

message: I would assume that there was no chance that AshleyMadison.com was going to be able to buy the naming rights to the stadium and this was just a publicity stunt - so why should they be mentioned here? 
Mikevegas40 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashley Madison? 

message: Isn't Dallas Cowboys stadium the largest at 110,000?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Cowboys_Stadium
Someone earlier referred to this. Cowboys only has 110,000 in expandable seating, not in fixed seating.
Wembley? That’s not an NFL stadium—and not in the U.S. 108.113.51.45 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest??? what about Cowboys Stadium? And Wembley is not an NFL stadium 

message: Just a quick question here for my fellow article watchers:  Is there any specific reason that all these sports and entertainment venues are listed in the "See Also" section, but we did not include MSG, the Izod Center, etc?  If anything, the Izod Center is right across the street, and is part of the complex, so in my own humble opinion, I'd think that it belongs.  Thoughts?  Kjscotte34 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Most other stadia (e.g., Soldier Field, Wrigley Field, Fenway Park), do not include this.  It serves no purpose in this article, as far as I can see.  There is already a whatever you call it box at the bottom (Template:NewYorksportsvenues) that covers this.  The section needs to be deleted. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree with you, HuskyHuskie, as most of the content in See Also has no relevance to MetLife Stadium.  However, I argue that the West Side Stadium link should stay, because the failure of that project was one of the catalysts for the replacment of Giants Stadium.  I would keep that as the only line in See Also.  Or better yet, there could probably stand to be a small History section (in the MetLife Stadium article) that further explains the rationale for the new stadium, that includes a mention of the West Side Stadium project.--MikeUMA (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike, your rationale for keeping West Side Stadium in the "See Also" section is sound, but your idea about placing it in the history section is even better, because if we do keep it and it alone in the See Also section, it won't stay alone for long.  Do you have time to do the necessary work? HuskyHuskie (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea!  I think the section is absolutely unnecessary.  And the West Side Stadium should be mentioned in the history section, because as you said, it was what got the Jets involved in this whole thing.  Thanks for the feedback!  Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: HuskyHuskie, I can try taking a shot at a History section at some point, but if anyone else wants to start, please go ahead.--MikeUMA (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and injected a History section, but I'm not from the area and know little of the subject, so I hope you go in and make it better.  I've also deleted the "See also" section. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also: 

message: Okay, can someone please explain to me why the Miracle at the New Meadowlands is a notable moment but the Jets home opener with the 9/11 ceremony is not?  The former is not sourced.  I can understand the preseason game not being notable, but the 9/11 ceremony?  Come on guys.  That's more notable than the power failure, and that remained.  If I don't see some good, hard evidence as to why the 9/11 Jets game isn't considered notable, I'm putting it back up, with sources of course.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the point: what is and what isn't "notable"?  I was about to raise this as a discussion point yesterday: the fact that the stadium hasn't even been open for 18 months, and we were already at 6 bullet points on the list.  This stadium is going to be open for decades, so we better start coming up with some criteria about what should/shouldn't be included, or we'll end up with a really long list.  Such criteria can certainly evolve over time.  As more time goes by, we could start to remove the less-memorable events.  My take: keep the 9/12/2010 and 9/13/2010 opening dates for each NFL team.  The 11/14/2010 power failure can be dropped, it wasn't very long and didn't affect the overall outcome of the game.  Keep the 12/19/2010 game for now, as that was quite a comeback.  Drop the 8/29/2011 rescheduling, no one cares about pre-season football.  Keep the 9/11/2011 mention, the anniversary is important in the NYC-area.--MikeUMA (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  Sounds reasonable to me!  I just couldn't understand how the tenth anniversary of 9/11 was considered "pushing it" especially considering that it is the NY Metropolitan area.  If it was a ceremony in a new stadium in, say, St. Louis, well then yeah, I could maybe understand removing it.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The 9/11 ceremony is not a unique moment to MetLife: ALL NFL games on 9/11 had a ceremony honoring the victims, and the Jets game itself is not particularly noteworthy (an opening game against a a non conference opponent). Miracle at the New Meadowlands OTOH had a once in life time occurrence of a team overcoming an almost insurmountable lead against a bitter rival and had playoff implications (and this is a Giants fan speaking). I would also be in favor of omitting the power outage game as well as the first "MetLife Bowl" (a preseason game as a notable moment? Come on.)Richiekim (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the section is notable moments.  The pre-game ceremony was indeed notable.  I understand that EVERYONE had a ceremony.  However, this was, for the lack of a better term, a milestone anniversary just a few miles from where the attacks occurred.  Like I said before, I can understand it not being considered notable in Kansas City or Chicago or something, but in this Stadium, it's notable.  Not having its own article notable, but certainly worthy of having a couple sentences in this section.  I am no Jets fan either, by the way.  I can agree with you on the Eagles game.  But as MikeUMA said above, the ceremony is important to fans in that area.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I went and looked over the history, and realized the IP editor added the 9/11 game, and did not breathe a word about the ceremony.  Richiekim rightfully erased it.  What I've done is gone in and added the pre-game ceremony, as I feel that is notable, not the game.  Take a look guys, tell me what you think.  Some rewording may be necessary, but I'll leave it up to you.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the Giants/Jets game keep getting deleted? That wasn't a notable moment? That was just as important a game as any of the other bullets if not more, first time regular season matchup btwn the two teams. Playoff implications. There's no reason for that to be deleted, if someone doesn't agree I'd really like to know why.
YeaUNOMe718 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

text: When it was first written, there were issues with recentism.  I say it belongs, but it definitely needs a rewrite.  Plus, it needs a source.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Moments...really? 

message: Okay, now that it's sourced, I do believe it has a place in this article.  But do we need to talk about it three different times?  It's in the opening paragraph, it's got its own section, and it's listed under "Other Events".  Surely, WP:Undue Weight has to apply here.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestlemania 

message: Is this section really necessary? As it is, the section will continue to grow indefinitely. It's also already attracting spammy announcements of non-notable events. —Al E.(talk) 13:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Many other stadium and arena pages have a similar section.  Yes, you're right that the content that ends up in these sections could grow unruly, but it seems that generally they're kept under control with only the most notable events listed.  You also did the right thing today by taking down that content which was clearly just listed for publicity.--MikeUMA (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other Events" 

message: The history of the Meadowlands is false.  Obvious written by a New Yorker.  There is no mention of the Governor that it was named after   a 4 term Democrat from NJ  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.198.158 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  the history of the meadowlands is false 

message: Knowing very little about the subject matter, I am unwilling to correct this -- however, it did irk me enough to point it out:
"View of New Meadowlands Stadium (under construction) and Giants Stadium (on right) in July 2009 moments prior to collision"
Are they battleships?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.149.30 (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collision 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on MetLife 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/currentboxscore.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MetLife 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.skanska.com/About-Us/Our-green-initiative/The-Green-City/New-Meadowlands-Stadium-USA/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717030331/http://www.njsea.com/stadium/Meadowlands_Stadium_NJSEA_Consultation_Process_Scoping_Document.pdf to http://www.njsea.com/stadium/Meadowlands_Stadium_NJSEA_Consultation_Process_Scoping_Document.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141230033656/http://www.overgaard-ltd.com/projects_new_meadowlands_stadium.php to http://www.overgaard-ltd.com/projects_new_meadowlands_stadium.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The red bulls never played at the stadium but the old Giants Stadium was home to the New York Red Bulls. 2603:7000:B901:8500:1C16:C236:D720:C571 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The red bulls never played at New Meadowlands Stadium.  

message: Yes Rutgers might of played army but then later joined the big ten and played their games at High Point Solutions Stadium in New Brunswick 2603:7000:B901:8500:1C16:C236:D720:C571 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rutgers played Army before joining the big ten conference.  

message: Giants Training Camp is held in the Stadiums facily - Quest Building is part of New Meadowlands Stadium. While the Jets training camp is held in Florum Park NJ 2603:7000:B901:8500:1C16:C236:D720:C571 (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giants Training Camp  

message: If you look up "world cup 2026 final location" on Google, it says MetLife Stadium in large text. I couldn't find a concrete source for this, so I wanted to ask if we should mention it in the article Polishedrelish (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup 2026 Final 

message: :User:76.166.183.180 you should not be adding concerts to MedLife Stadium, and it appears that all your edits to :MetLife Stadium appear to be promotional. Untamed1910 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop deleting them. Simply because a concert hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't notable. Also, most of the concerts you keep deleting have their own Wikipedia pages that list MetLife as a stop. MysteryMii215 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly Sourced Content at [[:MetLife Stadium]]