Talk:Stamford Bridge (stadium)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Page move
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)
[edit] Names
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)
[edit] Move ?
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)
[edit] Pics of East and West stand
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)
[edit] West stand contradiction
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)
- 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)
- Thanks for clearing that up. --Apyule 10:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why wasn't the profile of the East stand retained for the new stands?
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?
