User talk:Marlarkey/Archives/2010/April
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Marlarkey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wembley Stadium
Hi, You will notice that the source read: 'The arch ... so as not to cast a shadow over the playing surface' (emphasis added by me) and the image clearly shows the shadow of something (probably the 'roof) other than the arch, which would cast a completely different shadow due to it's structure. Furthermore, the statment beginning 'however it became obvious to spectators that this was not true' contravenes WP:OR and therefore needs to be cited ASAP. If you are able to provide WP:SOURCES for the paragraph then it can remain, aas it is it needs to go. raseaCtalk to me 20:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough... except that my edit is true it is just the citations that need adjustment.... for instance http://donbass-arena.com/en/news/?id=11820 states that the roof was designed to avoid a shadow across the pitch, as does: http://juni.osfc.ac.uk/Aim_Higher/Physics/docs/The%20New%20Wembley%20-%20presentation.pdf http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&lng=3&id=136420 http://liverpool.premierleagueinsider.com/index.php/stadiums/wembley You'll notice that all these references are in fact very similar in their text - direct copies in most cases. This yet again exposes the fallacy of relying on secondary sources as citations. The internet is full of false information that is copied and copied on the internet. Just because it is written on a web site, copied from another web, copied from another web site, etc does not make it true. The truth is exposed in the photograph, nearly half the pitch is covered by shadow, reality contradicts the multiple fasle sources on the net - the photograph is the citation. Watch the cup final on 15th May 2010 with your own eyes and make your own mind up about whether the roof casts a shadow on the pitch. Marlarkey (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Now we're getting into WP:OR. A WP:SOURCE is needed if the article is to state that the roof does, in fact, cast a shadow despite what the article (and previous news reports) said. Watching a bunch of guys run around after a ball does not constitute a reliable source. raseaCtalk to me 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... I'm sure you can see in the photo that there is indeed a shadow over the pitch ? And there are plenty of TV pictures and photos that show the pitch with shade across it (for example http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=476184&page=2). The problem is that the net is full of the false old claim - just because something is repeated ad nauseum all over the net doesn't make it true, especially when people just copy the text. I've now found this text commentary transcript on the BBC web site for the 2007 FA Cup Final (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/fa_cup/6672585.stm). The commentary makes clear references at 1504 and 1518 to the shadow across the pitch. I'm going to add this as the reference. And then I'm done. If that is not acceptable as per wiki policy then wikipedia can carry on perpetuating false information. Marlarkey (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- The edits you have made have certainly improved the article but, in my opinion, the article is still on the wrong wide of WP policy (admitedly I'm not a huge fan of our policies, afterall this is a hobby project for the few people that are interested, but if the policies are there we may as well follow them). My gripe is still that the text, as it stands, suggests that the arch is causing the shadow, whereas the picture shows the shadow is caused by a solid object (though this is, ofcourse, OR) and the sources provided are unable to substantiate the claim either way (they are too vague). If you are unable to make any further edits to the text I shall remove the section again (because I'm a a cunt) but compromise by adding a note to the effect of our conversation to the talk page. Thanks, raseaCtalk to me 01:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
- No I changed the reference to http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&lng=3&id=136420. That source refers to the roof "The southern roof can be retracted to allow air and light onto the pitch and can also be retracted to prevent shadows falling on the pitch which improves TV pictures." I think that clearly relates to the text of the article, I changed the text so that it used the same words as the source. Marlarkey (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- The edits you have made have certainly improved the article but, in my opinion, the article is still on the wrong wide of WP policy (admitedly I'm not a huge fan of our policies, afterall this is a hobby project for the few people that are interested, but if the policies are there we may as well follow them). My gripe is still that the text, as it stands, suggests that the arch is causing the shadow, whereas the picture shows the shadow is caused by a solid object (though this is, ofcourse, OR) and the sources provided are unable to substantiate the claim either way (they are too vague). If you are unable to make any further edits to the text I shall remove the section again (because I'm a a cunt) but compromise by adding a note to the effect of our conversation to the talk page. Thanks, raseaCtalk to me 01:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
- Hmmm.... I'm sure you can see in the photo that there is indeed a shadow over the pitch ? And there are plenty of TV pictures and photos that show the pitch with shade across it (for example http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=476184&page=2). The problem is that the net is full of the false old claim - just because something is repeated ad nauseum all over the net doesn't make it true, especially when people just copy the text. I've now found this text commentary transcript on the BBC web site for the 2007 FA Cup Final (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/fa_cup/6672585.stm). The commentary makes clear references at 1504 and 1518 to the shadow across the pitch. I'm going to add this as the reference. And then I'm done. If that is not acceptable as per wiki policy then wikipedia can carry on perpetuating false information. Marlarkey (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see now. However, the source reads (unless I'm missing another reference to the roof) '...can be retracted to prevent shadows' (emphasis added by me) so in effect does not really support the reports that it was designed to avoid shadows, simply that it is possible to avoid them by (effectively) removing the roof. All the picture shows is that they decided not to retract the roof. I think the whole section needs to go, it's apparent that there are not sufficient sources available to back-up the claims made by the article. I propose removal again and (as stated above) a note left on the talk. raseaCtalk to me 11:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've lost the will to live so you'd best do what you want. Marlarkey (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoops
Really sorry about that revert. The revert script i was using seems to be a bit buggy, since it showed as an article. My apologies, --seahorseruler |Talk Yoshi! 01:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problem :) Marlarkey (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)