Wikipedia

Talk:Atlanta Silverbacks Park

(Redirected from Talk:RE/MAX Greater Atlanta Stadium)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Site Cite?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article appears to be the only source I can find which states as fact that this stadium will be the home of the reconstituted Atlanta Beat. It's not even mentioned among the possibilities on the WPS or (new) Atlanta beat web sites.
Those [citation needed] things really annoy me, but it sure seems like this article should have one --Ray Radlein (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I removed the reference to this stadium possibly being used by the Atlanta Beat. Two years without a reference seemed long enough. --wilson (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.

The result of the move request was: article moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply


RE/MAX Greater Atlanta Stadium → Atlanta Silverbacks Park — It's the actual official name of the stadium.[1]--CapPixel (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re:Chamblee

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

I recently added "in Chamblee, Georgia" based on the infobox, as the stadium is clearly not "in Atlanta". However, a simple look at a map shows it's not in Chamblee, which is confirmed by their address and website and the fact that very few sources actually say that. I've now changed it to just "DeKalb County, Georgia, in the Atlanta metropolitan area". That's more than enough detail for readers to get a sense where the place is, it certainly doesn't need any more - and we especially don't need to say that it's both "near the city of Atlanta" and "in the Atlanta metropolitan area" in the same sentence. We don't need the capacity in the introductory sentence either, I'm not sure why that keeps creeping back in.--Cúchullain t/c 20:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, more on Chamblee, it's not relevant or helpful to tell the reader places this stadium isn't in. We're going to need some justification for including this town. Again, I'm the one who added it to the lead, based on the infobox, and I don't see any justification for keeping it. And of course the pointless redundancy of telling the readers the park is both "near the city of Atlanta" and "in the Atlanta metropolitan area" needs to go. No other halfway decent sports stadium article does that.
The only things that need to be in the introductory sentence are a very brief descriptor of the facility (ie, it's an SSS) and where it is. It's not in Chamblee, it is in DeKalb County, and it is in suburban Atlanta. We should ould just say it's "near Atlanta" OR "in the Atlanta metropolitan area" OR "in DeKalb County, Georgia". At most we could say it's "in DeKalb County, Georgia, in the Atlanta metropolitan area", or "in DeKalb County, Georgia, near Atlanta". If you feel the need to precisely geolocate the facility, perhaps you could add it to the article body, but it's way too much unnecessary detail for the lead.--Cúchullain t/c 02:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi. Just to lay some terms before we begin - let's try to maintain a good and respectful conversation that leads to a constructive agreement. I want to make sure that we can do this, and I know we can.
  • The information on Chamblee in the infobox was originally placed by a different user in June 2011. Why exactly it was used? I believe it has to do with a couple of reason. The first is Embry Hills, Georgia. The park and stadium is basically found in this area. The neighborhood is not a part of any of the surrounding cities of Doraville, Chamblee, or Tucker, but many businesses do use Chamblee as an address. Next, the stadium itself was once known as the Re-Max Greater Atlanta Stadium, which has been omitted from the article when it was moved a few years back (this is something I will reintroduced in the history of the body). When it was known as Re-Max stadium, a lot of reference was made to Chamblee in terms of proximity for location, hotels, shops, and general businesses. Chamblee is often used as the reference point for Embry Hills. Still, one big thing to consider is that Embry is also referenced as part of Atlanta. Many addresses use Atlanta as the de facto city. You can map out several to verify this. In this case the park and stadium is addressed to Atlanta.
  • Now, the key question is, should it be about Chamblee or Atlanta? Is the stadium in the center of Atlanta? We know the answer to that. But the situation lies in that the address still states it, and the neighborhood uses the city as the main reference point. Therefore it is hard not to keep this in mind. Also, I do know about Fulton and Dekalb counties as an option. However, I think referencing the counties, as the only main description, is too broad to definitely locate an area as one could have several cities and towns. It is important to distinguish between them.
  • Also, when describing the location it has to be directly about the subject. So using suburb as a description of Chamblee is not quite a description of the venue. When I originally wrote "by Chamblee, near the city of Atlanta, within the Atlanta metropolitan area", the description was about the park and stadium. I was trying to also be as impartial and thorough as possible.
  • There are a few scenarios we can consider. It is located "in Atlanta, Georgia" (this is synonymous with the address); "by Chamblee, Georgia, near the city of Atlanta"; "near the city of Atlanta, Georgia"; or "by Chamblee, Georgia, within the Atlanta metropolitan area".
  • I think, that because of the address, and what Embry Hills, and the park and stadium defers to, it should be the first option - "in Atlanta, Georgia". Then, as you mention, it can be further pinpointed in the body.
  • And lastly, as for the stadium's capacity, it is always key to mention this in the introduction to establish the type of venue it is and the amount of people it can hold.
  • Let me know what you think, and let's try to arrive to a common ground. Cheers NYCWikiKid (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think it's best to avoid Chamblee, as it isn't used in any sources I can see from the last several years at least, and it's not actually within Chamblee. It's not as if Chamblee is so well known that readers will be able identify the park by its relation. I'm also not seeing any sources that mention Embry Hills,[2] so that won't work either. The address the park now uses is the generic "Atlanta"; however, for an encyclopedia article, saying it's "in Atlanta" is misleading, as the park is actually seven miles or so outside the city limits. "Near Atlanta" or "outside Atlanta", as I originally put it before you reverted it,[3] is the best phrasing we've seen so far. Barring that, "in the Atlanta metropolitan area" or "in DeKalb County, Georgia" will suffice. And we don't need to say "the city of" Atlanta, readers get the picture.
The capacity has always been in the introduction, including in my initial rewrite.[4] However, it's excessive detail for the first sentence, especially considering the article appears to be about the entire complex and not just the main stadium. The placement is also better along with information on its development.
Yes, previous names do need to be mentioned in the article body, if not the lead. The article really needs a history section; I'm sure some basic sources are available.--Cúchullain t/c 01:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi. Yes, definitely, the objective is not to be misleading. I have been trying to be as clear with the location as can be. That is why we are here trying to come to an optimal solution. In reference to Chamblee, I don't think that it is an issue of the city being popular or not, as that isn't bearing on the location. I understand what you mean, but if it is relevant to Embry Hills and the park and stadium, then it should be considered.
  • Embry Hills does exist, and it is a neighborhood. The stadium is in the community. You can map it on Google. Keep in mind that you won't see a Google search in reference because the stadium is associated to the city of Atlanta rather than a neighborhood. However, do search on Google for Embry Hills in Atlanta, Georgia, and you will see that the neighborhood is also associated to the city.
  • In regard to Atlanta as the option, it comes down to the address. Yes, as I mentioned before, it is not in the center, but for some reason the city and state recognizes this address. There has to be a very good reason for it.
  • Just to make note, originally, the information in the article, before I did any edits, said "in Atlanta, Georgia". I left it as such. You eventually made an edit and placed the term outside of Atlanta. I didn't revert what you wrote. I amended the information to near the city of Atlanta, as the previous could sound confusing due to the address.
  • Since you mention that either near or outside sound better, then let's go for - located "near Atlanta, Georgia", this way it isn't saying that it is in it, it doesn't mention Chamblee, it doesn't repeat the metropolitan area, and it is being factual about location.
  • Regarding the actual article, I think this was originally about the stadium before it was moved to about the park or complex, or at least both topics were directly linked. Currently, the name of the stadium is interchangeable with the name of the park (e.g. Atlanta Silverbacks Park (stadium)). The names are synonymous. I am going to make note of this in the article so there is more understanding of the two, and less overlapping (it'll be done in the body). But I think the article is about the whole park with the stadium as the focal point. This is also why the capacity and the mentioning of the stadium is done early on.
  • If we can agree on "near Atlanta, Georgia", then we can move ahead to polishing the page further. CheersNYCWikiKid (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Something extra to look at, if you go to zillow, and type in the search engine for Embry Hills, Atlanta Georgia, you will see that many homes, adjacent to the stadium are addressed as Atlanta, GA or Chamblee, GA. NYCWikiKid (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I can see that Embry Hills exists, the points is that no sources on the stadium appear to use it, so we shouldn't either. That's the problem with Chamblee, too, it appears that few if any sources describe the stadium as in Chamblee, and of course it's objectively not in the city limits of the town.
As far as the Atlanta address goes, that's pretty common for unincorporated areas outside the limits of a city. However, on Wikipedia it would be misleading to describe it as "in" Atlanta. Let's go with "near Atlanta".
The capacity really is trivial and unnecessary detail for the introductory sentence. That's not just my opinion; I checked various Good Article-classed stadium articles (Apogee Stadium, TCF Bank Stadium, Aker Stadion, Åråsen Stadion, Gateshead International Stadium, Arsenal Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium, Millennium Stadium, etc.) and not a one of them includes such information in the first sentence. All of them just say what it is (football stadium, SSS, etc) and where it is, and occasionally what team plays there if there's only one main one. Let's move that info back to a subsequent sentence where it belongs.--Cúchullain t/c 19:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, let's go with "near Atlanta, Georgia". On a note, just to make something more definitive, what do you think of the following: "Atlanta Silverbacks Park is a soccer complex located in the Atlanta metropolitan area, near Atlanta, Georgia." I believe this makes the introduction and location sound more balanced.
  • Or "Atlanta Silverbacks Park is a soccer complex located near Atlanta, Georgia within the Atlanta metropolitan area."
  • As for the capacity, I will arrange the info along with the stadium itself in the second sentence to continue making headway. From there, we can expand on the page. NYCWikiKid (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've made it as clear as possible that I think saying it's both "near Atlanta" and "in the Atlanta metropolitan area" is redundant and unnecessary. The line should read "Atlanta Silverbacks Park is a soccer complex near Atlanta, Georgia".--Cúchullain t/c 21:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi. The previous redundancy was certainly within the concept of "in Atlanta, Georgia" and "in the Atlanta metropolitan area"; or "in Chamblee, Georgia," and "in the Atlanta metropolitan area" - as the first section within each comparison would already indicate the metro region. Still, the word "near", though the best option thus far, can be somewhat vague as the word has no true definition. The term near is a perception that every individual defines differently, usually in accordance with what is being compared. Near for someone can be half a mile, 1 mile, 10 miles, 20 miles, 70 miles, or a county over, or a few counties over, or two hours away. It also doesn't definitively say that it is within the metro area. Some location can be just outside the metro area and still considered close to the city. I think, whoever does read the article should receive an understanding of what we mean as "near" and the relative subjects at hand, in that we are using the term to define the proximity of a sports facility to a city center and that it is within its metro area, so that the term is placed in proper context. Let's simplify it to "near Atlanta" as we have already agreed on, but somewhere in the body make note as to its location for further clarity to the user. I hope that sounds good. Now let's get to editing. NYCWikiKid (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
None of the options give the precise location short of including the actual coordinates, which is of course excessive. "Near Atlanta" is all we need for the first sentence. Any more specific information can go in the article body.--Cúchullain t/c 01:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Format

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding recent edits: all articles on stadiums (and most topics, really), have a history section covering its history; this one should too. The majority of ones I've looked at have a separate section for describing the structure and its features; this is usually called "facilities", "structure and facilities", "design", etc.; I've started a bit of one now titled "structure and facilities" to make it clear this info is separate from the historical details. IMO this is where the ostensible future plans should be mentioned.
Separate sections for soccer and rugby are fine, but both really need sources. We do need to reduce the amount of sections with only 2-3 sentences in them; hence I've moved the passages about the commercial to the history section, though it doesn't really seem notable anywhere. Finally, from what I can tell, the "Atlanta Silverbacks Reserves" only played for a few seasons and didn't play in 2013. It's not on us to predict whether they'll be back or not - the website says nothing about them, we just go with what the sources say. As such they shouldn't be in the lead and we need to make it clear they didn't play in 2013. However, we do need to mention the youth programs as the sources mention them. Overall, the article is starting to shape up.--Cúchullain t/c 04:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Once again, every stadium article has a dedicated history section to cover its, well, history. This article isn't so well written that it should be the one exception. Facilities and design can go in the dedicated "Structure" facilities. Also, stop adding the reserves team to the lead as if they were still active. Per WP:CRYSTAL we can't try to predict whether they'll be back. And most sources I've seen note that teams only moved to this park in 2007 after playing in DeKalb Memorial Stadium.--Cúchullain t/c 14:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Again, *all* decent stadium articles have a dedicated history section. Burying the material in other sections isn't productive. And the sources are pretty clear the reserves team didn't play in 2013; whether they'll be back or not is up for debate. Per WP:CRYSTAL we go with what we know now, not what we can predict.--Cúchullain t/c 02:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • C, I am only noticing these notes now as I have been very busy doing other things on the site. Ok, let's definitely work on a few items.
  • Before doing so, I want to say that thus far we have established a good collaborative effort on this article and I appreciate that. So let's continue on that path.
  • With that said, there are a few things to look at. The dates in the infobox were recently incorrect. I have already fixed them. The park was opened in 2004 and the entire club used the park since its inception. The men's first team used it as their main practice facility until the stadium was opened in 2006. The same for the women's team. The youth team used it in 2004 as well (I placed a resource from the USSF to it). The reserves team was established in 2007 and used both the park and stadium from that point on. Also, the rugby team use both the park, primarily Renegade Field, and they use the stadium for larger events.
  • History. I think that a history section is certainly important. However, not every article on a stadium actually has one, primarily because it may not have had an extensive amount of significant events. This is the case for this stadium. Aside from that, most parts that pertain to a specific category (e.g. Soccer, Rugby, etc) already covers the related symbolic accounts. What we can do to make something worth while is to create a timeline and place it in the page. This can cover the different points of the stadium's existence.
  • The Reserves team is not "defunct". This is not crystal balling. (I really dislike the misuse of that term). The reserves team still exist and they are still using the park. They are simply not participating in a league as they are assessing their involvement with it. That does not mean that the reserves do not exist.
  • Also, there were a few parts in your recent edit that became a bit repetitious. A few lines actually were repeated (you can look through it). The Design category already details the development of the stadium so there is no need to add structure and facilities as this becomes redundant. Everything regarding the architecture of the stadium should be covered there. Keep in mind, that different pages may have certain sections in their articles, and they are good reference points for others to start, but that does not mean that every article is supposed to mirror the other as each are distinct.
  • Arrangement was something that also needed some tweaking. The Adidas commercial info is being served by the Uses section. This area is already explaining to the reader about different sports and other events that have taken place at the stadium.
  • Lastly, due to the the minimal significant historical events at the stadium, it is better to maintain the article as streamlined as possible without trying to stretch the content. I think together we already reached a very good template for the article. The way it looks now is great and it gets to the point. Indeed, this, like all articles, is ever-evolving. Let's give the venue some time. When things start to happen, then we can continue to add other uses (e.g. concerts, debates, festivals, football, etc.), or design details (when the stadium actually gets expanded), or anything else that comes our way.
  • Sincerely, let's consider a timeline to serve as a compliment to the page. Cheers mate. NYCWikiKid (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • PS - I never reverted any edits. Really see through it. I revised the article.
  • (What you wrote.
  • I then revised.
  • You reverted.
  • I replaced because I think you didn't read through the revision I did.
  • I added something new to the article.
  • You reverted again and asked that I do not revert). You left the same errors.
  • Note - I only mention this so things are clarified and you can really read the revision I made. Let's get the article back to how it was.NYCWikiKid (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
The team appears to have moved into the stadium in 2007 for home games. This source says the men's first division team and the W-League team were using DeKalb Memorial Stadium in 2006 and were moving to Silverbacks Park the next year.
This source says the reserves played from 2008-2012 and are now on "hiatus". Anything more nuanced than that can go in the team's article.
Creating a bunch of sections and subsections with only a few sentences in them is not "streamlining". The Adidas commercial should go in some other section if it's included at all, not be given its own subsection.
Literally every stadium article that's GA or FA quality that I've checked has a dedicated history section. This one's really not an arguable point. A timeline wouldn't be helpful IMO, since prose is preferred, unless the timeline was just supplementing the history section or something.
Most articles have a separate section describing the facilities as they currently exist; hence the "stadium & facilities" section here. It can and should be revamped with good sources, but I don't think we benefit by the previous arrangement.--Cúchullain t/c 02:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Atlanta Silverbacks Park. 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) 20:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atlanta_Silverbacks_Park&oldid=1205464458"