Edge Rewrite
pun Source code View original
Jump to content

Talk:Etihad Stadium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 20 days ago by Iseult in topic Requested move 2 July 2026
Featured articleEtihad Stadium is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 21, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 4, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 28, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
September 15, 2009Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on City of Manchester Stadium. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

City of Manchester Stadium - or Etihad Stadium

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Once again there seems to be an incipient edit war on the proper name for the article. This has been round the blocks several times already; but will keep coming back so long as the name 'Etihad Stdium' becomes increasingly established as the only one in current use. My own view is that the time to recognise this change of use in the name of the article is well overdue; but I fully accept that this is an issue on which a number of editors have strong views. So I am just a sounding out of whether a formal request for a name change would now be considered appropriate by other editors?

A few points I suggest as common ground:

- there are a number of established Wikipedia policies on article naming in respect of sponsored sports venues; but an absolute principle that sponsor names should be avoided is not one of them. Unless this has changed since we last discussed the change? seeWikipedia:Article titles

- nevertheless; there are good grounds for Wikipedia not adopting a sponsor name simply because the stadium owner has entered into a naming deal: firstly, Wikipedia should not be manipulated to promote a commercial sponsorship agenda; secondly, that many such venues do subsequently change their sponsor name, and that then leaves the article title having to be changed; thirdly, that there can be ambiguity when the same sponsor has naming rights to other venues; and fourthly, that sponsor names frequently do not become established as the regular name in general use. Did anyone ever call the Manchester Arena the Phones4U Arena? I see that many editors see delaying adoption of a sponsor name as a useful convention; and broadly, I concur.

- on the other hand; no name or edit in Wikipedia is fixed for all time, if it is not formal Wikipedia policy. There are increasing numbers of sports venues where the Wikipedia article name is indeed the sponsor name; Emirates Stadium, Allianz Arena, King Power Stadium. The most important criteria is how the venue is most usually referred to, while seeking to avoid confusion and ambiguity. Even though it may commonly be less desirable to use a sponsor name; that is very much a second order consideration.

But what do other editors think? TomHennell (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 28 April 2019

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 years ago26 comments12 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

City of Manchester Stadium → Etihad Stadium – (see Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Official names and .

It is beyond dispute that the official name for the stadium is ‘Etihad Stadium; and it is beyond dispute also, that this is the most commonly used reference to the stadium in current news media and all other notable sources. Since September 2018, when the Docklands Stadium changed its sponsor name from ‘Etihad Stadium’ to ‘Marvel Stadium, the name ‘Etihad Stadium has been applied to only one football stadium – this one. So the official name ‘Etihad Stadium’ is now “recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources”. Which clearly qualifies it to be the title of the Wikipedia article. The question then arises; is this also true of the current name ‘City of Manchester Stadium”; which was indeed the official name for the stadium when originally constructed for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002? It is rightly recognised as a good Wikipedia principle: “If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.” The current article title has the virtue of still being unambiguous; but its qualifications under the other two criteria above; ‘recognizable to readers’ and ‘consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources’ is no longer apparent. In an internet search of current news sources (which Wikipedia guidance proposes as the most reliable comparative assessment), ‘Etihad Stadium’ returns 537,000 citations, against 6,800 for ‘City of Manchester Stadium”. Moreover, around half of these ‘City of Manchester Stadium’ search returns are specific to UEFA or FIFA sponsored competitions; and hence may be discounted from consideration, as both UEFA and FIFA notoriously rename sponsored stadiums in their publications if the usual name clashes with commercial sponsorship of UEFA and FIFA competitions; even where no other name is recognised (and the sponsored name commonly stands as the Wikipedia article title). Most of the other search returns for ‘City of Manchester Stadium’ are historic; applying the old stadium name in recalling events ten years and more ago, when the stadium retained its original title. This is far from the first time this particular name change has been proposed; and formerly objectors have maintained that a general convention applies in Wikipedia, not to use sponsored names for football venues and stadiums. No such convention is found though in the “naming conventions” page. There is a note on Wikipedia:Official names ; “Official names of sponsored sports teams, tournaments and venues change whenever a sponsorship agreement begins or ends.”. This identifies concern at changes in sponsor as a sound reason to prefer the use of the most common name over an official sponsor name. But this should not apply here; as ‘Etihad Stadium’ is – by a wide margin – the most common current name. TomHennell (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose - I don't have a problem with new-build stadiums such as the Emirates Stadium or Walkers Stadium (now King Power Stadium) being named after sponsorship as there is no antecedent name. However, the City of Manchester Stadium was built without a sponsor for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and didn't have any sponsor until 2011. I can understand the WP:COMMONNAME rationale but it is already made clear in the opening sentence of the article and with a logo in the infobox that it is also known as the Etihad Stadium therefore I don't think a move is necessary. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose move. Though your idea is good in principle, there's no way I can support this, as your argument is primarily based on the official name of the venue. ONR (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
helpful if you could expand on your main pont; the guidance note states "Official English names ... should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used." are you proposing that 'Etihad Stadium' is not the most common name used? TomHennell (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Could you reference this 'long-standing convention" within one of the categories ? TomHennell (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
No, because it's not an official convention – no-one's ever bothered attempting to formalise it (as far as I'm aware) because this is a relatively minor thing and people have generally respected past consensus. But I assume you know this anyway and are just trying to make a point of some kind? Number 57 09:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Conventions are never official, if they were, they wouldn't be conventions. Nevertheless, this convention doesn't exist anywhere. TrailBlzr (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure you understand how Wikipedia works if that's your view on naming conventions. And as confirmed by GiantSnowman below, this convention does indeed exist; if you want further evidence, it was referenced by many editors in the last RM for this article a few years ago. Number 57 21:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, all I'd really need to believe this convention exists are enough examples where it was decided that pages where the overwhelmingly most common name should not be at the official title because it is branded. Mind pointing me their way?--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
See below. Cheers, Number 57 10:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support as both the common and official name. As far as I can see, there is not some sort of guideline that prohibits using branded names even when they are accurate and most common. Indeed, convention seems to be to go with longstanding common names, as the proposal suggests.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 09:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Question Thanks Number 57, but could you expand on "probably more widely known"? In the case of the Etihad Stadium, the official/sponsor name appears to be the only name now regularly in use in notable news sources (excepting where FIFA and UEFA sponsorship deals constrain names used in their competitions). Are these other articles also applying a name that is proportionally so uncommon in current news media as 'City of Manchester Stadium'? Can you give some relative counts? TomHennell (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
A quick search of the BBC website shows around 2,300 relevant uses of "Amex" and just over 100 uses of "Falmer Stadium", most of which are from a few years ago. Number 57 11:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
For my club there's also 'Northern Commercials Stadium / Valley Parade' (which is a Featured Article). GiantSnowman 12:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - Sponsored names, by their very definition, are temporary. It is therefore better to title articles about sponsored venues with an unsponsored name, if any exists. This is borne out by Bootham Crescent, which had a five-year sponsorship by Nestlé and was known as KitKat Crescent for the duration; however, the article correctly remained at Bootham Crescent, which is what the stadium is again referred to as now that the sponsorship has lapsed. In cases like Emirates Stadium or King Power Stadium, where the venue has never had an unsponsored name, it of course makes sense to stick to the most recent one, but this is not one of those cases. – PeeJay 08:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose As some have said, this is mainly due to the sponsorship reasons that most of these articles don't have the sponsorship name. If this does past through, what is not stopping someone from requesting that Bellerive Oval be changed to Blundstone Arena as that is the current name for the stadium. Or recently, Docklands Stadium being sponsored by Marvel. This can easily see problems arise if it's successful. Matt294069 (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose While this is currently the only active 'Etihad Stadium' with an article, at some point Etihad may take over the naming rights at say Yankee Stadium. Then the argument would start as to which is the primary topic, best to leave it as a disambiguation page. While the Ethiad sponsorship is long term (until 2021), as others have stated, even if renewed it will come to an end at some point. Bromptop (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 2 July 2026

[edit]
Latest comment: 20 days ago48 comments19 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The !vote-count, for reference, is 9-9, not that it's a vote. We look instead to strength of arguments as based on policy per WP:DETCON.

At the heart of the matter is the assertion, borne out by English-language sources offered, that "Etihad Stadium" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the stadium. This is not seriously contested on its merits by the opposition, if at all. The opposition refers instead to a largely-unwritten convention, based on dozens (if not hundreds) of RMs over the last 20 years; a short description of it is evident at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus#Stadiums; it reads Articles on stadiums should be titled using the unsponsored names where possible. Sponsored names should only be used in cases where the stadium has only ever been known by a sponsored name (for example, the King Power Stadium).

Here, that guidance seems to contravene the policy of COMMONNAME. Accordingly, it's a local consensus, and I cannot give the opposition based on the mentioned consensus weight in this discussion, and this article is moved.

Further discussion will probably be necessary to determine carve-outs or clarifications of COMMONNAME where it applies to sponsored names. (closed by non-admin page mover) In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 06:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

City of Manchester Stadium → Etihad Stadium – Clear WP:COMMONNAME. It simply isn't called City of Manchester Stadium by anyone anymore, with reliable sources having nearly exclusively used "Etihad Stadium" for years by now, to the point that finding a contemporary one that it genuinely takes effort to find contemporary ones that refer to it as "City of Manchester Stadium". This is about as clear-cut of a common name case as they come, and I was astounded to see the unrecognizable title we use for this article. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 10:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  • Support per nom. There is no requirement for an article title to reflect a stadium's non-sponsored name. The redirect will always exist and it can be moved speedily if Etihad ever ends their sponsorship. Raskuly 🐰 16:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. "City of Manchester Stadium" is not the name used by reliable sources, and it is not the name that Wikipedia should use. There is no policy-based reason to disqualify a title because it includes a sponsor name. 162 etc. (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 09:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - it is well established that for stadiums and competitions we do not use sponsored names, partly because sponsors often frequently change and we don't want to be moving articles all the time. Even Man City refers to it as 'City of Manchester Stadium' as its proper name, see e.g. this. GiantSnowman 10:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    That article is about the history of the ground and its first paragraph starts Witnessing thousands of majestic, marvellous and unimaginable moments, the Etihad Stadium – Manchester City Football Club’s magnificent home. It later does use CoMS when talking about the time before the renaming, before switching back to Ethiad for current usage. The search link at the bottom of the page is also titled Etihad Stadium. It may be correct to say the club sometimes refers to CoMS historically (can find other articles that say the then City of Manchester Stadium), but it is clear they use Ethiad Stadium in current regular usage. Spike 'em (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, because that's the proper name, before it was sponsored! GiantSnowman 21:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    No, that is the old name, before it was renamed. The proper name is now Etihad Stadium. Spike 'em (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
While there is a pattern of such RMs being influenced by editors with a distaste for sponsored names, I'll point out once again that there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which prevents us from using such a name as an article title. The argument that "we don't want to be moving articles all the time" is equally baseless; there is nothing wrong with moving the article if the need arises, per WP:NAMECHANGES. 162 etc. (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, but there is a very longstanding consensus at many, many RMs. Is that not worth anything? GiantSnowman 21:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Local consensus does not override site policy, especially not a policy as important as WP:COMMONNAME. See WP:CONLEVEL and WP:POLICY. 162 etc. (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, not really. See below reply. I suspect that in a lot of those RMs the closers did not weigh the strength of arguments as they should have. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 07:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - We should use geographically helpful names, and not be an advertising platform. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - Wikipedia is not paid by Etihad to use its name so the non-sponsored title should remain. There has been a long-standing consensus for articles to use non-sponsored names where one exists, particularly in the UK where sponsorship like this is less common. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - there is nothing wrong with the official non-sponsored name of City of Manchester Stadium. I believe we have had this debate before and came to the same conclusion. Stevo1000 (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment – I was going to respond to the opposition above but there don't seem to actually be any policies or guidelines being argued, so I'm just going to point my finger at WP:COMMONNAME and the lack of any naming convention creating special rules for sports stadiums. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 12:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per longstanding consensus that non-sponsored names of stadiums are preferred (hence the outcome of the three previous RMs being not to move the article). There isn't a naming guideline for stadiums (as it's too niche a subject), but see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus#Stadiums. Number 57 01:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    It is certainly not because it's too niche of a subject; we have conventions on way more niche topics than this, and stadiums frequently come up in move discussions, often involving moves to sponsored names. What we actually have here is a classic case of a WikiProject having a WP:ADVICEPAGE containing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that contravenes broad consensus:
    WP:LOCALCONSENSUS:
    Impermissible: A group of editors (whether or not a WikiProject) decides that relevant sitewide policies and guidelines should not apply to particular articles.
    WP:ADVICEPAGE (part of the WikiProject Council guideline):
    An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor.
    WP:COMMONNAME is part of the WP:AT policy, which only allows naming conventions (as in the actual guidelines with demonstrated consensus) to act as exceptions.
    Of course, if you have evidence for a formal discussion at the level required to make a naming convention you are more than welcome to link it and we can consider what the best way of adding it to the naming conventions is. Otherwise the place to discuss this is at policy and guideline talk pages, as move discussions should be focused on the application of already established naming conventions rather than establishing new ones. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 07:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    The consensus detailed on the page I linked to above is not a 'local consensus' based on discussions by WikiProject, it is noting a common outcome of dozens (if not hundreds) of RMs over the last 20 years (and contrary to your claim, I've been involved in several discussions over the years that effectively resulted in a conclusion that a naming guideline was not needed to the narrow focus of the topic. I appreciate that as a fairly new editor you will not have been around to see these discussions, but you can see evidence from three previous RMs for this article alone. Number 57 17:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Sure, I'm fairly new, and I can't speak to the past, but I can certainly speak to the present. I've looked at RMs nearly every day for months by now and I've seen a fair share of stadium-related ones, usually related to sponsorship changes, and not once has there been a consensus that WP:COMMONNAME should just be ignored, nor that anyone has even tried to argue such a thing, as there is no PaG-backing for it. If there ever was such an informal consensus, the decision that it shouldn't be a naming convention has had exactly that effect in practice too: it isn't a naming convention.
    Honestly I'm quite astonished editors are genuinely arguing one of the fundamental five WP:CRITERIA doesn't apply without having solid PaG-backing. If sufficient consensus for outright going against WP:CRITERIA, on something that regularly comes up at RMs, that is literally whole point of NCs. To suggest that sufficient consensus does exist, but that there is also a consensus to inexplicably not make it an NC, while providing no evidence of the latter, is honestly wholly unconvincing considering we have NCs that have been cited in RM discussions less than a dozen times in total. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'll note that Wikipedia:Common outcomes, linked above, refers to Wikipedia's deletion process, not the RM process, and is not relevant to this discussion. I'll also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus is 100% a local consensus, and in no way trumps sitewide policy. 162 etc. (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per Number 57, I was not aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus#Stadiums. Raskuly 🐰 01:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    @Raskuly See above reply. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 07:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    This is not a LOCALCONSENSUS, this is one taken from many RMs over the years. GiantSnowman 08:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Repeating the same local consensus a lot of times does not suddenly make it stop being local consensus. If something is only stated on a WikiProject advice page and is in contravention to policies and guidelines then that is pretty much the textbook definition of a local consensus. Besides, I have seen tons of RMs about stadiums that involve sponsored names, and in my experience this just isn't a convention that is invoked in those types of discussion.
    If you insist that there is broad consensus for this being a convention, then by all means, be my guest and start an RfC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus#Stadiums to elevate it to guideline status or one Wikipedia talk:Article titles to create a new naming convention on stadiums, but an RM just isn't a good venue for trying to have that discussion. RMs are for applying PaGs to article titles.
    I recently closed a discussion that had editors agree a guideline clearly said one thing, but also that it shouldn't say that. As the consensus it was bad was local, the RM was closed with the guideline enforced, a discussion was started at the guideline page to change the guideline, and after it was changed a new RM about the same article was started. That's the right way of going about it. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 10:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I am waiting to see if there is evidence of this not being local consensus before striking again. Still has several days to go, and I don't want to strike potentially unnecessarily again. Raskuly 🐰 16:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Perfectly understandable. Honestly, I think we need an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles regardless of how this turns out as there is clearly some things needing to be straightened out here. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Definitely support an RfC, as WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NAMECHANGES should cover this. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. Spike 'em (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per Wikipedia:COMMON NAME ~2026-38997-64 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Huh? You sure about that? –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 22:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Support WP:COMMONNAME. For those that say that sponsored names should not be used, almost every major stadium in the US is only referred to by its sponsored name. Another example could be the Allianz Arena. That article is not called the "Munich Football Arena" despite that name being used in UEFA competitions. Etihad has been the sponsor for 15 years now and there is no sign of the deal ending since Abu Dhabi owns both Etihad and Manchester City. Etihad Stadium is by far the most common used name in the football community, and in the sources someone else provided above. D4R1U5 (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME as above. (Similarly, for example, Gillette Stadium is correct for the Massachusetts venue, even though Gillette aren't the first with naming rights, and it's referred to as "Boston Stadium" during the 2026 World Cup.) Andrew11374265 (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per long-standing consensus at WT:FOOTY and move discussions that we should not use sponsored names if known by another name. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    That does make sense but why is Allianz Arena not called Munich Football Arena then? D4R1U5 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    The Allianz Arena never had an long-term official or commonly-used non-sponsored name, which is not the case for this stadium. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Etihad_Stadium&oldid=1365101405"