Talk:List of current NFL stadiums

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

'Year first used'[edit]

This category is ambiguous. Is it meant to be the year first used by the current home team, or the year first used by the NFL, or the year first used for any purpose? If it's the first, then the Soldier Field entry is wrong (the park opened in 1924, but was not the Bears' home field until 1971; they did play some playoff or rivalry games there earlier, but I doubt as early as 1924 -- this probably should be explained in a footnote). If it's the either of the last two, there's no need for duplicate entries for Giants Stadium; the earlier date, 1976, should be the only one shown (although there should probably be a footnote detailing when the Jets arrived). ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 01:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think becasue the article is about the actual stadiums it should be listed as the first year the stadium opened, not the first year it was used by an NFL franchise. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is about actual NFL stadiums, though. I think the column header should be changed to say 'Since' so that it reads 'Home Team Canton Bulldogs' 'Since 1922' (say) and that, if the stadium's opening date differs, that should just be noted as a slash (1971/1924) or a footnote (more likely a footnote). -- 98.69.172.75 (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see this has come up before. Below I suggest multiple columns. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Stadia[edit]

This list is supposed to be current stadia, yet it lists Lucas Oil and "New Cowboys". We are still in the 2007-2008 season, at least for 2 more weeks,so Lucas Oil is debatable to leave up there as it will open in 2008 and the Colts will not play any more games there. However, Texas Stadium still has a whole season left as the Cowboys Home (assuming there are no construction delays). Please keep the list for current stadia. 66.185.75.247 (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Colts season is over, Lucas Oil is the current stadium for the Colts. You have a point about Dallas, though. -- JTHolla! 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Centre[edit]

According to the media in Toronto and Buffalo, the Buffalo Bills will play one home game per year at the Rogers Centre beginning on December 2008. Please add the Rogers Centre to the list of NFL stadiums? Johnny Au (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, unless you're planning on adding Wimbley to the list. -- JTHolla! 02:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crystal[edit]

I reverted Pats edit, but want to talk about it here, as well. WP:CRYSTAL says:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.

I do not know about every stadium on the list that was deleted, but I do know that Dallas_Cowboys_New_Stadium and New_Meadowlands_Stadium are both currently under construction, and would very well fit into the "almost certain to take place" provision of WP:CRYSTAL.

The others on the list seem to fit the "speculation about the event must be well documented, as well.

Thoughts?

-- JTHolla! 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago is the biggest city to have a NFL stadium[edit]

I DEFINITELY think this is worth noting. 207.211.82.6 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys Stadium's actual capacity[edit]

Cowboys Stadium should actually have it's capacity adjusted as it is actually much higher. 80,000 represents the number of seats. With Standing room, (Party Pass as it's called) something that is used every every game, it's well over 100,000. Either that or it should be noted somewhere that capacity is represented by actual seats and not actual capacity. Deepintexas (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier Field[edit]

Not sure if this has been discussed before but the "year opened" for Soldier Field reads 2003. Should a major renovation count as "year opened". It should read 1924. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and change it to 1924. If anyone has a different take on it please let me know. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is problematic. I see that it's back to 2003, but of course, 1924 is also accurate. What I think is that we should add a column for "Major Renovation", which would take care of this. But I'd also like to see a column that indicates when the current NFL tenant occupied the facility. Soldier Field again presents an issue in this regard, since the Bears only arrived in 1970. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to address User:HuskyHuskie's concerns through use of footnotes ("a" and "b" notes whose text displays at the end of the end of the section, not the usual reference footnotes that display in the "References" section).
I believe (please correct me, and the article, if I am wrong) that there are only two current stadia that saw their first NFL occupancy in a year other than the year they opened; these are Candlestick Park (opened for MLB in 1960, NFL in 1971) and Soldier Field (opened for field sports in 1924, first NFL tenant 1971). It doesn't make sense to have an entire column just to address two exceptions out of 29 total entries. Also I don't think any other current stadium's renovation was quite as thorough as Soldier Field's -- again, correct me if I'm wrong. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 01:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and here we go again with the 1924/2003 debate. I undid the revisions by User:Armyman74 today for the following reasons:
1. The current Wikipedia article on Soldier Field deals with both the current structure and the pre-renovation structure. It gives 1924 as the date it opened, and 2003 as the date it "reopened". Our main article on this topic treats the 1924-2002 and 2003-present structures as the same building. This list should be consistent with the main article.
2. I know this probably fails WP:OR or WP:NPV, but if you ask the average Chicagoan on the street: "How old is Soldier Field?" he will not answer "it's been there less than 10 years."
3. The text added to the footnote was either unncessary or incorrect. It previously read "Field and seating bowl completely rebuilt in 2003"; Armyman changed it to read "Field and seating bowl completely rebuilt into a new stadium in 2003". "Completely rebuilt" implies newness, so if the purpose of adding "new stadium" is to refer to the seating bowl and field, it's redundant. If the purpose is to assert that the entire structure is new, that's wrong. Parts of the old stadium (e.g. the colonnades) were retained.
I don't want this to be an editwar, so I'm not going to make this a vendetta, but I'd like to hear what others have to say. Thoughts, anyone? ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 13:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The footnote recognizing the renovation is sufficient. —Al E.(talk) 14:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm with y'all, too. Looks good with a well-written footnote. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is dumb. Just because the name is the same doesn't mean it is the same stadium. Even the term "renovation" is not accurate. It was renovated, it was completely demolished EXCEPT for the colonnades. Even local architectural boards don't consider it the same stadium. I am changing it back to 2003. Get real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.212.123 (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to clarify my comments on this topic. And unlike those who have used merely conjecture and supposition to stake their claim on this issue, I will bring facts. In September 2003 a project to retrofit and modernize Soldier Field was completed. The result was a new seating bowl cantilevered and asymmetrical in shape, with sky box seating extending four-stories beyond the original colonnades on the east side and eclipsing one of the primary distinctive architectural feature of the original stadium. On the western end the open-air cantilevered seating extends and eclipses the colonnades, essentially obstructing the view of the colonnades from all angles. The outer skin of the new bowl consists of a curving steel and glass skin.
Because the colonnades WERE the most distinctive architectural feature of the stadium before its renovation, the addition of the cantilevered bowl during remodeling affected the stadium's ability to convey its historic appearance. What's more, and arguably more importantly, during the remodeling phase original historic features and spaces were literally destroyed, such as the historic bowl. Very few features EXCEPT for the now dwarfed colonnades remain from the original Solider Field (née Grant Park Stadium). Soldier Field remains ONLY in name. It is clear to everyone that Solider Field II is a NEW stadium. Proof of this is the FACT that because of the incompatible construction and the destruction of most (if not all) historic material, the National Historic Landmark designation was WITHDRAWN on February 17, 2006. As such, Soldier Field II was reborn on 2003 and is NOT in any way the same as Soldier Field I, which dates to 1924. The argument that Soldier Field I and Soldier Field II are the same is like saying One World Trade Center is the same as the original World Trade Center buildings because it contains materials from the original twin towers.

Domed-ness[edit]

I think the table needs one more column next to the turf that describes whether the stadium is open or has a retractable or fixed dome. -- 98.69.172.75 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There was highlighting and dagger symbols that indicated the type of roof, but the problem with using highlighting and dagger symbols to do so was that the table could not be sorted by type of roof, and I have thus converted the highlighting/daggers to a separate column that indicates roof type. —Lowellian (reply) 08:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FLC preparation[edit]

I'm going to spend some time trying to get this to FLC. I'll be making many changes but very few significant ones. If you have any suggestions or don't agree with something I did, we can discuss it here.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Raiders Stadium und new stadiums section[edit]

Is this even an article? it has 2 sentences and no sources. Its not even a stub. A stub at least has things but has information missing. This is nothing. Does not even sound right a 50,000 capacity NFL stadium. NFL would never sanction that with how things stand now. Citation on chart under new stadiums is from more than a year ago and is not even something preliminary. Its just talk.68.198.20.98 (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True expanded capacity of Lincoln Financial Field[edit]

According to the chart within this article, Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia has 67,876 seats, but it can be expanded to 1,000,000. One million people? I don't think so, but I can't find a more accurate number. Bunkyray5 (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for surface type?[edit]

So, some of these surfaces are extraordinarly specific -- i.e. not just "grass" but "extra-virgin Bermuda strain 007" and the like. I'd be more comfortable if such specificity were cited. For example, the Panthers entry links to a page about groundskeeping where the strand of Bermuda grass is cited.

I'm even less comfortable with citation-less reference to commercial brands of artificial turf, such as FieldTurf.

I'll look for some references next time I'm around. If you have a chance, please do. Does anyone object to me simplifying the entries for which a clear reference can't be found, to just "artificial turf" and "grass"?Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified entries are probably better where clear references cannot be found. Even with references, field surfaces are updated from time to time, rendering fairly recent references obsolete. For example, the hybrid grass/turf at Lambeau Field was updated before the most recent NFL season.[1] From what I can tell, this change involved a different company than the one listed. 20:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.packers.com/news/new-turf-ready-to-welcome-packers-into-2018-season

Smallest stadium[edit]

An anonymous user keeps on changing the smallest stadium from Soldier Field to O.co Coliseum. While the Coliseum may be smaller, the wording of the sentence is "smallest FULL TIME stadium". The Coliseum is currently shared by the Oakland Athletics of Major League Baseball. If an administrator could do something to block this disruptive reverting, that would be great. Thanx. Jdavi333 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps rewording would be best. "Full time" stadium sounds like a stadium that a team plays all their regular home games. Maybe "smallest NFL stadium with no other regular tenant", "smallest exclusive NFL stadium", or something like would work better. Straykat99 (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the language, but some anonymous editor still keeps changing it. Maybe a semi-protection would be warranted for this page? Jdavi333 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


U.S. Bank Stadium turf 2016[edit]

Since the page is lock when it is unlocked or whatever please cite U.S. Bank Stadium ( Vikings) turf as UBU Speed Series S5-M Synthetic Turf [1] here is the source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.49.221 (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jdavi333 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image at article top[edit]

@Jdavi333: and @Sabbatino: Please stop re-inserting the non-free image at the top of the article. Unless that particular artist's rendering is actually discussed in the article (as in, not just the stadium being mentioned in the article), you should not be using the non-free file, per WP:NFCC#8. As it is, the image is simply being used to illustrate something that's mentioned in the list, which is an improper use of NFCC. In the interest of having something at the top of the list, I'll replace the non-free image with a free image of stadium, but please don't revert reintroduce the non-free image again. Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Stadium being moved[edit]

Should we move Las Vegas Stadium to under constructiom stadiums because the proposal was accepted FlashGaming (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until they actually start building. Anything can happen. Jdavi333 (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under construction and proposed stadiums[edit]

They look better on mobile (in desktop view mode) the way they are formatted now. -NetWitz- 14:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)NetWitz[reply]

Please start a detailed discussion stating what changes you want to make before arbitrarily applying them. Several pictures got messed up and formatting was skewed. i reverted everything until a consensus is reached regarding major page changes.Jdavi333 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the future stadiums section so it looks better on mobile devices, also the pic of us bank is way too big to be used on that list. -NetWitz- 19:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)NetWitz[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of current National Football League stadiums. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Address[edit]

Is it safe to assume that everyone agrees with me that this page is not the correct venue (no pun intended) for the listing of the individual addresses of the stadiums? An anonymous editor has been adding them. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:POSTABBR quite clearly says that postal abbreviations and codes should not be used. And yes, addresses do not belong here either. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_current_NFL_stadiums&oldid=1216641176"