Talk:Metropolitano Stadium

Requested move 26 June 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Wanda Metropolitano per consensus as to target. bd2412 T 21:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Estadio La Peineta → Estadio Wanda Metropolitano – Despite being the same stadium but expanded, now it is not denominated more as Estadio La Peineta. The metro station also changed its name to "Estadio Metropolitano", but following other stadiums, the article can have the name of the sponsor. Asturkian (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Wanda Metropolitano. That shorter form appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME in sources, without "Estadio".[1][2][3]  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Wanda Metropolitano per Amakuru. — JFG ^talk 13:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gallery

Myself and an IP user have different opinions on the "Gallery" section, I believe WP:GALLERY forbids it and he or she believes it supports it.

In my opinion, the selection of photos is random and has no theme. It is a way to fit as many photos into the article. That is what Wikimedia Commons is for. The guideline that I linked, says:

However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the

, Media related to Metropolitano Stadium at Wikimedia Commons, or

templates. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

I need as many views as possible here, instead of a back-and-forth between two people. I am tagging recent editors to the page:

UnknownBrick22 Asturkian Loopy30 Jodosma Theinstantmatrix Flix11 Robby.is.on 7leumas Darius robin Hichem algerino Seth Whales MakaMido Ydj1997

Harambe Walks (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I only improved the way the photos are exposed and I thought it was better to put them in a gallery code way instead of regularly. About the discussion of WP:GALLERY, I'm not very informed about the style so I really can not give an opinion. Sorry. Asturkian (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It's OK. I had to tag all recent editors because otherwise I could be accused of selectively choosing people for this discussion Harambe Walks (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Asturkian if you know anybody or any project who would be interested in this debate, you can tell them. Wikipedia works by consensus and that means everyone should have a say Harambe Walks (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a pointless gallery that seems to exist for no reason other than to cram pictures of the stadium into the article. It even includes the same image that we already use as the page's main image (in the infobox). I don't see any justification for thinking that this collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. If any of the individual images are useful then use them separately, but the gallery fails WP:IG Meters (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• It will be better to keep the images, but only remove that one duplicate that Meters mentioned. Darius robin (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why would we keep all of these images in the article. let alone in a gallery? A terrible picture File:002625 - Madrid (4704244112).jpg of the original stadium that's 80% sky, and another picture File:Frente del Estadio Olimpico de Madrid.JPG of the original stadium. We could use the second one if we want to illustrate why the stadium was nicknamed "The Comb", but the same feature is still visible in the infobox img. Then we have two images of the stadium being reconstructed File:La Peineta (agosto 2016) (cropped).JPG File:Visita a las obras del Wanda Metropolitano, futuro estadio del Atlético - 35945932483.jpg. We don't need to show these at all. Next is an interior view of the stadium File:Visita a las obras del Wanda Metropolitano, futuro estadio del Atlético - 36358485180.jpg. We can use this one (but the image description needs to be corrected on Commons. It incorrectly duplicates the description of the following img). The next picture File:Visita a las obras del Wanda Metropolitano, futuro estadio del Atlético - 36358485180.jpg is a useless publicity photo of an official visit. And then we have File:Wanda Metropolitano - Madrid - 28022.jpg which is clearly just a cropped version of the infobox picture File:Wanda Metropolitano - 2017-09.jpg. We can incorporate the few useful images into the article body. I see no justification for keeping the gallery. This isn't the construction project's publicity page. Meters (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, one of the construction shots File:Visita a las obras del Wanda Metropolitano, futuro estadio del Atlético - 35945932483.jpg gives a view of the new roof line from the side and would contribute to the article. Meters (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have rearranged (removed some pointless images and added others), however I have no problems if you wish to revert my edit(s)....please feel free do so. SethWhales ^talk 07:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Seth Whales. When the article looks better we can move the gallery to a section about history or construction Harambe Walks (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have just noticed that File:Visita a las obras del Wanda Metropolitano, futuro estadio del Atlético - 36585392582.jpg has been added to the gallery. IMHO, unless the visit by Cristina Cifuentes and Enrique Cerezo is mentioned in the article, I cannot see the value in adding an image of them. What do other editors think? SethWhales ^talk 14:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. Meters (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The name of the politician is not named, only his position I don't see any publicity in this photo. The value is the interior view of the sadium from the stand, another perspective of the interior. When more images of the interior are available in Wikicommons I agree to remove this one.--95.22.177.60 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly a publicity photo of the politicians. I've removed it again. Unless there is consensus here to use this image it shold stay out. Meters (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Only one politician and her name is not mentioned, only his public office. I think that this picture should be in the gallery as I said in the previous post. If you want to skip his position and who is she I agree, but it seems to me that there is no reason for remove the picture.--95.22.177.60 (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This File:Visita_a_las_obras_del_Wanda_Metropolitano,_futuro_estadio_del_Atlético_-_36585392582.jpg is not a useful picture of the stadium. It's a publicity picture of an official visit. As the photo description (via Google translate) says, "The president of the Community, Cristina Cifuentes, accompanied by the president of Atletico Madrid, Enrique Cerezo, has visited the works of the new stadium of Atletico Madrid, which will open on 16 September" We already have a good view of the interior of the stadium. We don't need another one that has a bunch of people in the foreground blocking the view of the stadium.

This picture was first added to the article on September 14, and since then has been removed at least six times, so the edit summary on the latest restoration of the material [[4]] "sorry the original version includes the picture, first discussion and then remove or changes" is not correct.. Per WP:BRD this is a contested edit that should stay out until consensus is reached. Meters (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not in the caption of the picture, the description doesn't appear if the reader doesn't click in "more details" and acces to the wikicommons page. The description of the file in wikicommons is irrelevant because it is also in another language and often wikicommons images comes from flickr galleries of companies, public organizations etc. that have a description much more publicity than saying that someone appears in a photo. It is not possible to consider that it isa "publicity of an a politician" because in the description of the picture in wikicommons (that is not the one that appears in the article) she is named. I also don't understand that someone can advertise a person by name she in a description of a photo in wich appears. But anyway her name doesn't appear in the caption of the article and I remove her position to avoid any advertising about this visit. Only a very good view of the interior until there are no better images of the stadium, when more images of the interior are available in wikicommons I agree to remove this one as I said.--95.22.177.60 (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not about what is in the photo caption that you wrote. It's about the content of the photo. It is clearly a publicity photo as the original description by the uploader shows (it's irrelevant what language the description is in). It is simply a bad picture to use to show the interior of the stadium. We already have a much better photo of the interior of the stadium in the article, so there is no point in using this publicity shot. Meters (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that too many readers know who is in that photo, and neither care about that, it is not an publicy photo in any case, just a view of the inside of the stadium from the stand without wide angle from a higher location etc. a good image, for a quick view of the stadium, and I insist that when there is a similar image in Wikicommons, I agree to remove this one because is of the stadium under construction, but not until then, because has a value to show the interior of the stadium. --95.22.177.60 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter who is in the picture or what the description says. It i s a publicity photo, it is a terrible picture to use, and we have a far better picture in the article already. It serves no purpose. It should be removed. Meters (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, well, so if no matter who appears in the photo or what the description says, why you say that is it a publicity photo? Thank you, you already gave the reasoning for yourself. Seriously there is no reason to remove this image, as I said is not named at any time who is in the picture, there is no publicity of anything, and the image offers a good view of the interior from the stand and from a higher position, without wide angle etc. it has value to the gallery.--95.22.177.60 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't find any meaning in putting the first four [older pictures of construction] in gallery. Its not required!!. The last 3 pics in that are fine and they were uploaded by the 'President of the Communidad' (which should be retained imo). I'd also encourage someone to upload/ post recent pics of the stadium as its no longer under construction and also update main images of new stadium. 7leumas (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The gallery of construction pictures was created rather than simply removing the random gallery of pictures under WP:IG. We seem to have consensus that the gallery of construction images is acceptable. If we remove the obvious images of the construction (as you suggest) then the gallery has no point and it should be removed.

The image under discussion now is File:Visita_a_las_obras_del_Wanda_Metropolitano,_futuro_estadio_del_Atlético_-_36585392582.jpg. It's a publicity photo of local polititians and such, and a terrible shot of the stadium itself. More than one editor has stated that it should not be in the article but a series of IPs keep restoring it. Meters (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Wanda Metropolitano is not the official name

Please bear in mind that the official name of the stadium is Estadio Metropolitano. Due to a 10-year contract agreement between Atletico and Wanda Group, the commercial name is Wanda Metropolitano (only for La Liga matches given that UEFA doen't allow any other commercial name different from the marketing agreements that they have). Additionally, please also take into consideration that the old Metropolitano (Atletico stadium between 1923 and 1966) official name was not Estadio Metropolitano as it is shown in wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estadio_Metropolitano_de_Madrid), the correct name for that one was Stadium Metropolitano, in English. Kindly see the Spanish versions of wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estadio_Metropolitano_(Madrid) https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_Metropolitano_de_Madrid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.27.252 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• 2019-05-10 wanda metropolitano.jpg (discussion)
• Wanda panorama.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)