Wikipedia

Talk:Adelaide Oval

Latest comment: 3 months ago by Teratix in topic Cutting the article down
Learn more about this page


Complete article re-structure

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Agree with the person below. This article is a poor article, a really poor article. Just by reformatting a couple of things in the space of ten minutes, the Introduction is far more polished and looks like the beginning of a well written article. With everyones help, this article could be one of the best on Wikipedia- thoroughly deserving to a ground of this stature. Let's pick up the slack, guys. WikiNerd91 01.40, 1 October 2011 (ACST) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC).Reply

Rewrite

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is in need of some proper structure and research. The majority of the article is a laundry list and the final section, which isn't, appears to be a political pov. Much of the current History section is trivial statistics and there is really very little information about the actual ground or its features, such as the iconic scoreboard. The article has excellent photos of this and other aspects, but they are largely wasted. The current work at the ground will not only change its seating capacity and facilities, but the very size and shape of the playing field, so if there is enough history to be added, then it should be structured so that obsolete information is not deleted as new developments occur. MrAngy (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Layout of the oval

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Right, I created the little layout dealio but was wondering if someone has/could make a diagram to show the location of the stands around the oval (or maybe an aerial picture from straight above would do). Please fix formatting ... CheersMaelgwn 09:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Abduction

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Surely this doesn't need to be there. Do we include a list of murders/abductions/robberies that have occurred in a suburb in that suburb's article? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes because it's a rare event at a cricket ground and you can't compare cricket ground articles to suburb articles. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 20:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Abductions are (relatively) rare events wherever they occur. It doesn't relate to the ground itself at all. It's not like it was something intrinsically due to the nature of Adelaide Oval that allowed the event to occur. That, and it's completely unreferenced.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The abduction of 2 children by stranger is an extraordinary crime. It is a relatively rare type of crime when there only a single child victim. Due to the brazenness of the crime,the fact the event is part of Adelaide Mythology it should be included. One key fact is that the ground admin would not broadcast an announcement of the missing children until after the game , and thus extinguished the possibility of the abductionbeing halted should beconsidered 115.128.63.71 (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but I'm more inclined towards Yeti Hunter's view. As he says: "Abductions are (relatively) rare events wherever they occur. It doesn't relate to the ground itself at all." Etc.
"One key fact ... " - I'm afraid I don't understand how the point you have raised is relevant to this discussion ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The section has been restored. Current consensus (per above) is to exclude. In the absence of any further discussion, I'm reverting it out again.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what the problem is. It has a great deal of relevance, and is a fact of Adelaide Oval's HISTORY. Again, its part of the ovals HISTORY and should be mentioned. You could say that the mention and photo of the Sir Donald Bradman statue should be removed then, because it's not even in the ground. Oz Juice24 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

History

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is mentioned in the history article that in the 92/93 season vs. West Indies that Courntney Walsh's delivery brushed Craig McDermott's glove. I would debate that. The umpire ruled that Craig McDermott was out caught behind, but in fact the delievery brushed the peak McDermott's of his helmet and was incorrectly given out. I remember this very clearly, and the video replay proved this. Oz Juice24 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Layout section

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

From the layout discussion above, it appears as though this section has been formatted such since 2006. I'm not sure about anyone else but I find this technique of image formatting highly untidy and you'd be hard pressed to find a layout like that anywhere else on Wikipedia. I think an image gallery is of higher priority than a layout of the oval, so I will go about placing the images in one and possibly looking into a layout diagram as suggested in an above discussion. We should probably be looking to model this article on something like the Melbourne Cricket Ground or the Lord's Cricket Ground articles. --timsdad (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply


Can someone put some detail in about the stand above the grass hill(Clem Hill Stand)? ie in between the Chappell and Bradman stands

This is one of the best features of Adelaide Oval but doesn't get a mention144.132.241.6 (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pictures

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

There's a noticeable lack of pictures of the new stand - I have taken several (at England V South Australia, and the 2nd 2010 Ashes test) that I am happy to allow the use of. I have no idea how wikipedia works in regards to images but here's an imageshack link to them http://img29.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=img0786rc.jpg - I don't mind if they are re-hosted 203.132.83.80 (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Second Test - the Ashes
 
File:Adelaide Oval Scoreboard Dec2010.jpg
 
File:Adelaide Oval NE Dec2010.jpg
 
File:Adelaide Oval SE Dec2010.jpg
England vs SA
 
File:Adelaide Oval WestStand Dec2010.jpg
 
File:Adelaide Oval North Dec2010.jpg
 
File:Adelaide Oval South Dec2010.jpg
 
File:Adelaide Oval InsideWestStand Dec2010.jpg
A nice collection!
Uploading the pictures is easy.
The hard bit is the licensing & copyright & ownership.
Wikipedia image-licensing-nazis are very particular about what you mean by "I am happy to allow the use of".
The imageshack page says "© 2003-2010 ImageShack Corp. All rights reserved." (Did you realise that you had assigned them your copyright?) This means the pictures can NOT be uploaded to wikipedia from Imageshack.
For those new to the process, it seems VERY complicated. (I have to admit that I'm still not across all aspects.)
For an image to be allowed to be uploaded to wp, it must satisfy one of two criteria:
  • Either: One can use it under a "Fair Use" criteria, because otherwise it would not be available (e.g. a picture of a unique event, or a picture of a person who is now dead) - not the case here because someone else could take such photos.
  • Or: It is available under a "Free Use" license - i.e. You, the author and copyright owner have released the photo for "free use" by anyone.
This comes in several "grades".
  • At one extreme, {{PD-Self}} says "I release it to the public domain, and anybody can do anything they like with it."
  • At the other extreme, there are a number of similar but different licences that say something similar to: "I'll let you freely use this photo, but you must attach the license description to the photo, and anyone else who subsequently uses it must do the same.
In other words, if you want to allow it to appear on wikipedia, you have to give up some of your ownership rights, and you have to give up all of your rights to income from the picture.
I hope that helps. As I said, I am NOT an expert in this area, I just know what I have to do to get what I want. As you almost certainly don't want the same things I want, it can be complicated.
So, if you want to forsake all your rights (not recommended), or if you are happy to release your work under one of the GDFL (GNU Free Documentation License) licenses, I can help, and I'm happy to help. As I said, they're a nice set of photos. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've been WP:BOLD, and assumed you are happy to release your photos under a GNU license.
Please advise if I am wrong, and I'll delete them. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to surrender all relevant rights to allow use of the files on wikipedia, regarding the imageshack copyright thing, that just refers to the page design AFAIK, their TOS says that by uploading it I give them and any other users the rights to use the pics, but not ownership. 203.132.83.80 (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Jolly good! (That's the answer I was seeking!!) I will press on. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Distinct lack of pictures of the new stands. But plenty of irrelevant images of cricketers in the commons page??? Lokster (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

cleanup/POV/refimprove tags

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The state government redevelopment section at the bottom of this article has issues in all three areas for what should be fairly obvious reasons. If I can find some time for it I may work toward improving it, but if others can step in that would be great. Timeshift (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's been 18 months and the section is still a joke. The section provides a bare bones discussion of fact coloured by a minority viewpoint, and a very small minority at that. The majority viewpoint and controversies regarding the redevelopment are explained in a single sentence: "Other small complications are still ahead, but should be easily passed." Very easily passed indeed, against council opposition, public opposition and a 7 - 2 majority vote by the Parklands board the government set up a commission to decide if a historic avenue of trees, which the government promised in writing to protect, would be bulldozed to make way for expanding a carpark. Unable to get a majority decision, the commission voted to defer the question. An emergency meeting was announced and held the next day for which only four members attended and the four voted to axe the trees which was done before the public was informed of the decision. This is typical of the significant controversies regarding every aspect of the entire development which is viewed by the general public as vandalism and public money being spent for private gain. There is also not a single word about the Torrens riverbank redevelopment and the casino which is an integral part of the Adelaide oval redevelopement. Wayne (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

AFL Records - should it be there?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Being a multi-purpose sport venue, it doesn't seem right to have the AFL records written (probably written by a Port Adelaide supporter?) with an entire section by itself, when the SANFL records and other cricket records are not mentioned at all. It should be noted that even the bodyline series has only rated a mention in a bullet point.

I agree that the records were probably added by an over-excited local supporter, and I did think they looked a bit silly to start with, but the AFL is now probably the most frequent user of the ground, so they are significant and will only become more so. It's not valid to disparage one type of content by mentioning a lack of content of another kind. The solution to the problem of not enough content on bodyline is to add more. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can anybody get the record tables aligned neatly like the cricket ones? I tried but couldn't get it right.
SANFL records are heavily mentioned, OP missed it?
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Adelaide Oval. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adelaide Oval. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Adelaide Oval. 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) 18:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Adelaide Oval/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 09:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply


I'll take a look at this one. I'll post my review as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • There are seven refs in the lead which seems like a very large amount. If information in the lead is also used within the article, there's no need to include a ref in the lead.

Development

edit
  • This section is very choppy, the first seven paragraphs add up to only nine sentences and most of it is unsourced. This section needs rewriting to connect these events into a more flowing prose.
  • There is an issue with sourcing further down also. There are chunks of information that are seemingly unreferenced.
  • Do we really need a table for a redevelopment vote? This could easily be explained in prose.

Layout

edit
  • There are six subsections here that have no souring, one of which is even tagged as needing a citation.

International cricket

edit
  • "Test and One Day International", I'm not really sure why this is on its own?
  • "many exciting events", exciting is POV and a WP:PEACOCK word.
  • Sourcing issues in this section also.

Australian rules football

edit
  • Spectacular is used twice in picture captions and is another WP:PEACOCK term.

References

edit

I'm calling it a day there as I think it's pretty clear this meets at least one of the GA quickfail criteria. The major issue here is sourcing, there are large chunks of the article that are seemingly completely unsourced. The article needs going through to ensure that any significant claims or facts are backed up by reliable sources. The prose also needs streamlining to avoid very short, single sentence paragraphs.

I would also say there are too many tables included. We have tables for literally everything here. For example, I'm not sure we need tables for "Most career games at the ground" or "Lowest score by a team". There's no reason some of these tables can't be converted into prose instead. Unfortunately, due to the points noted above, this is some way off becoming a GA. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cutting the article down

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Based on the just added very long tag and the GA review, I think it's clear that a lot of the stats in the article just need to be excised. We don't need five different tables of attendance records. We don't need a list of every international soccer match. We don't highest scores by quarter in the SANFL. I feel like the stats could pretty much all be removed, and some of them replaced with prose if they're actually important. I wanted to mention it here before going ahead and doing it. Does anyone object to this idea? OliveYouBean (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

About time someone had a crack at this. Only suggestion - don't delete stats outright, just fork to a separate list article. "List of Adelaide Oval sporting records" or something. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agree - all long lists and tables could be split off into separate articles. This article should be mostly about the structure, and include some prose descriptions of the various sports and notable sportspeople who have played there, and/or any particularly notable events or records or whatever. It's an unreadable mess at the moment. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've made a start by creating a new article out of the test cricket records... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've now done my worst and am going to leave it alone. I've attempted to improve the structure and layout, provide more history citations, and general copyediting. I'm sure there is more that could be done but probably best done by someone really interested in sport. I have carved out some sections and created mostly list articles out of them, to make the article more readable. Note that one of these, Australian rules football records at the Adelaide Oval, has been nominated for deletion, so anyone who is interested in keeping this should comment on the talk page there. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Forking statistics out to separate lists is a bad idea – as was said in the deletion nomination, it's doubtful they meet our criteria for having stand-alone lists. We just need to make some tighter calls on what's important and what's not, bearing in mind we're an encyclopedia, not a statistics repository. – Teratix ₵ 17:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Error in photo caption

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The caption to the photo of Kapil Dev says: "Kapil Dev took 19 wickets in ten innings; the most of any non-Australian."
The table immediately to the left of the photo says:
- Kapil Dev took 19 wickets in 6 innings
- JM Anderson (ENG) took 19 wickets in 10 innings

:( Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adelaide_Oval&oldid=1255352838"