Talk:White Hart Lane

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Event Venues (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues articles

Untitled

There is an error. Google Maps shows Selhurst Park, NOT White Hart Lane.

So it is, looks as if someone mistook White Horse Lane as White Hart Lane, No Probs, i'll fix it though. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed ref

I removed this ref as it wasn't working, http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2013-14.pdf Govvy (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead is rubbish, but some people seem to want it that way so I'll give up now. Haldraper (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rubbish? You changed it around taking out a few vital elements and the English you left didn't roll well after reading it. The same with the other Spurs article you touched, the English there had less cohesion after your edit. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make about seating was that it wasn't a result of it becoming more popular with fans - and if someone wants to assert that it was, they need to provide a reference for that - but of legislation banning standing terraces. Haldraper (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fact 1: Citation is at the end of the paragraph. Fact 2: The 1960s which you are denying is the Bill Nicholson era, where Spurs were playing the best football in the league. That's why they won the league and cup double and the league again. And you're wondering why the attendance is so high?? You aren't doing your fact checking, you haven't reviewed the citation, and you were not assessing what was already there. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Govvy. The only point I'm disputing is that all-seater stadia were introduced because they became popular with fans (my version which you rved avoided making that assertion by just saying "conversion to an all-seater stadium") but, again, if you want to say it, you need to provide a ref for it. Haldraper (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would tend to agree with Haldraper, with regards to the "increased in popularity". Just "conversion to all seater stadia" or similar would suffice. Koncorde (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

stadia is plural of stadium. This article is about White Hart Lane. :/ And what are you agreeing too? It is very well known that crowds went down in population with the introduction of seating and safety laws. You would need a citation if the article had the exact date for the changes, but it doesn't, however there is evidence with citation of the large numbers and follow up data around the article showing the number of seats there is now, which I noticed people keep messing up and changing. as it is, it's fine. You don't need citation unless you are being more specific. Govvy (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we know stadia is plural, but the point was relative to the wider issue of all seater stadia, and the "with regards to" generally indicates what a person is referring to or agreeing with, i would have thought that was quite clear. Claiming the popularity of seating has driven the increase in crowd size is still a claim. The absence of a date actually makes it worse as it now cannot even be subjectively referenced to a person, or article, making it a direct voice of wikiedia. You asked for a third opinion, because you don't like Haldraper, I am giving it to you. If you don't like it, maybe, just maybe, Haldraper isnt solely at fault? Koncorde (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, having read the lede, it is indeed fooking awful. There are aspects of Haldraper changes I don't think are ideal, but still the changes would be better than current compound sentences and multi-threaded paragraphs. Aside from the first paragraph, it currently reads like someone with a short attention span spoke into a dicta machine. Koncorde (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? It never said that seating increased crowds, it says the oppersite of that. And the evident is in the infobox and further down on the page. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Err it did, which is the bit you just edited? Koncorde (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong info regarding cockerel location

The gold cockerel is above the East Stand, not the West. The correct history is located at http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/the-stadium/history/ It did used to be on the West Stand many years ago (see article)212.139.65.230 (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operator element in infobox

@Wellington190: Mace aren't going to Operate the stadium, they are a construction company, so it's demolition and building the new one, so what you're putting in the infobox doesn't work. Govvy (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Past-tense

I just wanted to point out to editors be careful were you past-tense the article, because even know the stadium is gone, the site is effectively still the same the location were the new one will be and you can still go visit where the ground was and the new one will be. Cheers Govvy (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post Hillsborough

Don't know if it's worth a mention, but following Hillsborough, and at the direction of Scholar, Spurs became the first club to remove the "cages" which were a major contributing factor to the disaster. He did so voluntarily and this led to others quickly following the example. I am not a fan of Scholar, but he does deserve credit for that initiative. Apologies but I cannot find a source for this, and it was my recollection of that time.46.7.195.132 (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, part of the fencing started to be removed at White Hart Lane before Hillsborough happened, but whatever the sequence of event, I believe it is true that White Hart Lane was the first to remove the fences. However, we need a source to be sure that we are adding the correct information. Hzh (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was an incident involving Newcastle fans in 1987 (photo, fan recollection, so perhaps the club were already sensitive to the issue, especially as our fans experienced a crush at Hillsborough in 1981 that led to it being removed from the FA list for semi-finals. Jts1882 | talk 13:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were many changes at that time, so can't remember the details, but the fencing for the home fans was probably removed in 1987 some time after that match I think, but kept for the away fans for a while yet. Maybe Govvy has information in his books? Hzh (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]