Talk:Tottenham Hotspur Stadium

Tenants

@Govvy: Please stop removing the tenant field, you are completely wrong about this, please see Dodger Stadium and Yankee Stadium. SportsFan007 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

I'm not involved in this dispute, but it should really be noted that this is an American usage, not British usage, as already discussed in the talk page Template talk:Infobox venue#Tenants field. The difference in opinion is down to what "tenant" means, and in the UK, it usually means "renter" of a property. Anyway, Govvy started another discussion there, you can joined the discussion there if you want to. Hzh (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not my fault that people don't know how to use the fields correctly or the fact that the Tenant field has been totally mis-used for years. Owner field should never match the Tenant field, Tenant field should only be used when they are in fact Tenant's. Owner field is also stackable, it doesn't need to list just one owner. Govvy (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: If they play there then they are tenants. Just listing them as owners brings confusion as to whether they play there or not. SportsFan007 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

No it doesn't it is even more confusing to the reader the way people are currently use the field. I have attacked this long ago and I will attack it again, this is my field, this is what I have studied, more so than anything else. I think I know what a dam Tenant is and how it is represented. Govvy (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. On Template:Infobox stadium, it says the following for the tenant field: “Insert the teams and any other parties who use the venue as their home stadium or arena.” SportsFan007 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

As already stated, it's American usage, not British usage. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hzh and Govvy: American usage should also apply here as the stadium will be used for NFL international games. SportsFan007 (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Any non-Spurs team playing here could be the tenant if they play at the stadium regularly as the home team, American usage has got nothing to do with it, so I'm not sure what the point is. That there are Americans living in London does not make London American, nor what Londoners speak American English. Hzh (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

American usage or not, the precedent on Wikipedia venue articles, even British venues, has been that the "tenants" list shows the team(s) that play or have played at the stadium, along with the years they have been there. That much is evident by the description at Template:Infobox venue for "tenant" ("Insert the teams and any other parties who use the venue as their home stadium or arena."). This has been true even for US stadiums that a given team owns, such as Dodger Stadium or Citi Field. Until consensus can be achieved for a better header for that field, it's out of place that this stadium doesn't list the team(s) that play there and when. We get it. The team owns the stadium so is not a "tenant" by the legal definition. The place to come to a consensus for a new heading name, though, isn't here since it would affect all stadium articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. the discussion should be somewhere else, i.e. at Template talk:Infobox venue. It is however not the policy of Wikipedia to choose one national variety of English over another per MOS:ENGVAR, therefore the idea that precedent reigns is not valid, and that may need discussing at the template talkpage. (Just in case anyone is wondering, I have no preference one way or another on this issue.) Hzh (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

JonRidinger There was never a consensus nor has been, just whoever the idiot is that wrote the the original description made a mess of it. I have tried multiple times to discuss this on Template talk:Infobox venue, if you don't want to take part and fix the situation. That's not my problem, I simple will not allow incorrect information on the article. Govvy (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: that discussion was closed long time ago SportsFan007 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

To close a door is to open another door. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The term tenant is literally is used like this on every article of team owned stadiums around the world. THS is the only exception. You do not have a case here. ReNaHtEiM (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that other people aped the US stadium articles does not mean that we need to do it here. West Ham and Manchester City are tenants of their stadiums, Spurs are not. But, this dispute has been going on for a long time, I would suggest that you get a consensus on the edit (e.g. start a request for comment, either here or the stadium infobox talk page), so that the dispute can be concluded decisively. Alternatively perhaps request the addition of a "home team" (which is the British usage) field that can be used instead of "tenant" in the infobox for British stadiums. Hzh (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It‘s not only used on articles about US stadiums but for stadiums all around the world. You will have a hard time finding one where it isn't used this way, I had a look and it is pretty much the only one. I would also argue that internationally AE is more widely used than BE so why are you guys trying so hard? It leads nowhere that this article is the odd one out. ReNaHtEiM (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The infobox was written with American venues in mind, people then just followed the American usage. There is no reason why infobox can't respect local usage and add additional parameters. This issue has gone on for so long, so it is worth thrashing it out in one way or another. Hzh (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

NFL London Games

@Govvy: Why isn’t NFL London Games a tenant? SportsFan007 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Because NFL doesn't have a lease with Tottenham Hotspur, there-for they are not a Tenant. You really should read Landlord–tenant law and stop wasting everyones time. Govvy (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The NFL International Series is an event like the Super Bowl or World Cup, but not a tenant. Yes, the NFL has an agreement with the stadium owners (same as with Wembley, which also should not have the NFL International Series listed as a tenant), but not a formal lease as Govvy mentioned. Tenants usually have quite a bit of say in stadium operations and even appearance (like the Cleveland Browns funding and executing major renovations to their publicly-owned stadium) and usually have not only a visible branding presence in the stadium, but offices too. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Request to add SCX as engineer and installer of the retractable pitch

In the pitch section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham_Hotspur_Stadium#Pitch

please change: "The football pitch can be retracted in a way similar to that..."

to: "The football pitch, engineered and installed by SCX, can be retracted in a way similar to that..."

Darren Falkingham (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Comment I haven't made the change yet as it could be considered advertising. However, the retractible pitch is a major feature of the new stadium in the coverage by the club and the media. The article makes the point that the division into three sections is a first, so I'm inclined to support the change. Let's wait for additional comment before making some such change.   Jts1882 | talk  09:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's fine I think. I've made the change. Although if others object it can always be reverted. The main contractor is mentioned in the infobox, perhaps if there is some way of introducing it there instead? Hzh (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it is fine where it is. The infobox has enough information already. My reservation was that if one contractor for one part of the stadium is added, where does it stop? We don't want all the contractors mentioned. In this case I support inclusion because it is about a notable feature of the stadium, but thought it worth raising the discussion point.   Jts1882 | talk  09:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The infoboxes for other stadiums have more information, e.g. Ethihad Stadium, Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Yankee Stadium, etc. although I do admit they look excessive especially for the American ones. In this case I'm not too concerned about adding a few more, given that the pitch has significant interest and received a lot of coverage. The question to me is more how to add the information. Hzh (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the documentation of {{Infobox venue}} it has the parameters |main_contractors=, |structural engineer=, |services engineer= and |general_contractor=. None seemed ideal for the pitch manufacturer (is providing the pitch a service?). That's a problem with such an innovative design. I'd also ask if Mace is the main or general contractor?   Jts1882 | talk  13:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Mace is I think the general contractor, there are other contractors for other job, e.g. Morrisroe which is responsible for the foundation. Frankly I'm not quite sure what the distinction might be between main and general contractor (which gives them as being the same thing). I think SCX which is responsible for the pitch can be put into engineer field since it is also responsible for its engineering (there are separate engineers for the main building and the roof). I'll add that in and see what you think, the reference to SCX in the main text can be removed since the others are not mentioned outside of the infobox. Hzh (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Table of NFL London Games

A table of the NFL London Games held here looks neat and similar tables are available of most other wikipedia pages I feel this does belong on this page due to the large presence of the NFL at this stadium. Discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven a91 (talk)

Routine games are generally not listed in stadium articles, otherwise you'd end up with a long list. Many NFL games were played at Wembley Stadium, but they are not listed there. The NFL games at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium can be considered routine since they will be played regularly there. Listing the games in NFL International Series is sufficient. Hzh (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There was some listed on Wembley article I think but were removed. It's fine adding the games to prose, but repeating the same information again in a table is a no, no. MOS:TABLES Also states at the bottom that prose is preferred over tables. Govvy (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Why should all NFL games be listed, when the games of the primary "tenant" aren't? If the latter were listed, the list would quickly get ridiculously long. Games of sufficient importance, such as the first NFL games at the stadium, can be added to the text.   Jts1882 | talk  08:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ground capacity

Hzh The capacity is 62,214 [1] and Spurs have applied to increase to 62,303 Govvy (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Tottenham applied to increase the capacity, then the proposed capacity became 62,062 + 152 = 62,214. 5 August 2019 is the date their application to the council was approved - [2], only 5 days before the season started. There is, however, no indication that the work has been done yet. The Evening Standard article on the same day appears to have misunderstood the Tottenham press release, which simply stated that they had approval to increase the capacity. So far I have seen no indication of increased capacity, for example the NFL game, despite being a sell-out, gives an attendance figure of 60,463. The reason appears to be that some sections of the ground have not yet opened (for example, I think Sky Bridge is still closed). The most recent application is still just that, an application, it does not mean the the previous approved capacity has been implemented. Without any further confirmation, I should think that we should wait until after the season ended to change the capacity (presumably that is when they would do the work). Hzh (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that the correct capcity 62,214. The club announcement in August stated that they had approval to increase the official capacity, i.e. approval to change the official capacity, not approval to start work on changes to the stadium. It also stated that this change followed a detailed review of the stadium seating bowl during the summer months in conjunction with Building Control, which has allowed us to add a small number of additional seats in the North and South stands, i.e. that they had already added the extra capacity ("has allowed", not "will allow"). We have a secondary source reporting the announcement, correctly in my opinion. Not to increase the capacity assumes the Evening Standard made a mistake and ignored what the club said.   Jts1882 | talk  11:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the club states The stadium has a capacity of 62,214. That statement is clear and unambiguous.   Jts1882 | talk  11:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I very much doubt that they can start work on the day they got their approval, because there are checks and procedures they need to go through, not to mention the actual time it will take to add the seats. I think arguing about semantics of the wording is dubious, since it can be read as allowing them to add the additional seat in the application, not the actual work. Hzh (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I take that back, I think an official statement from the club is sufficient as a source, not the Evening Standard article (which I still think misreported the press release). When I checked some weeks (probably that same page) after the Evening Standard article it still said 62,062, I would assume that they had done the work since then. Hzh (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I still think it's weird that there are more people in the stadium than said capacity know! I was wondering if the council said you can't go over this amount and yet have Spurs built more capacity than is mentioned? Govvy (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there are more people in the stadium? It is possible they may allow in more for concerts (I would assume that the capacity would be different for concerts, but there is no concert staged there yet), but so far I haven't seen any reports of more people in the stadium than the stated capacity, all the released figures are lower. Hzh (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Uses section

Is it me, or is that starting to look really messy? Govvy (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably the concert section. That may need to be cut down a bit. I guess given that the stadium is designed for multiple uses, it will get a bit bloated, so less significant events need not be given. Other stadium articles have sizeable uses section, like Yankee Stadium (1923) and Yankee Stadium. Probably too early to have a list article like List of events at Wrigley Field, but we'll see. Hzh (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Image of the UK

Why is there a massive image of the UK in the infobox? Govvy (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

NM, I removed it, people should know where London is, it was a stupid edition to the infobox. Govvy (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)