Talk:PPL Park

Stadium Image
Hey, I think the image on the Union website has been updated from the one shown here, is it time to update it? Bigger digger (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Powered by Panasonic"
This section is just advertising for Panasonic - the details of a commercial link-up are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. At most this should be in a list of sponsors.Dancarney (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, the press release given as a reference is focused on the PoS deal (cash registers!). There isn't anything stating that the AV equipment is anything noteworthy (ie, some new technology), it just states that it will be provided by Panasonic. Its not encyclopedic. ccwaters (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The section describes how the stadium will be equipped. It's not an ad as alleged.JaMikePA (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Describing the equipment and being an advertisement are not mutually exclusive. Dancarney (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Transportation
I removed this section because it is basically a set of directions of how to reach the stadium by public or private transport, and as Wikipedia is not a travel guide I feel that this does not belong here. One editor disagrees, so I thought a discussion should be started. Dancarney (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This portion of the article doesn't contradict anything WP:Travel says. JaMikePA (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. I put the wrong link in - should have been WP:NOTTRAVEL. It states "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like." Directions to a location fall under this definition, I feel. Dancarney (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Image placement
I'm starting this discussion so there's no further excuses not to use the talk page. MOS:IMAGES specifically states: "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other", and WP:LAYOUT says that "images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." This means: do not put text between two images across from each other in the article. There is nothing in any image guideline that says images cannot extend into the reference section. In fact, there are pieces of featured content with images specifically in the reference section. The fixed image widths in this article should be removed, as there is no reason to override user preferences. The default image size of 220px is more than sufficient for the images in this article. The sizes also contravene WP:LAYOUT, which states that "An image that would otherwise overwhelm the available text space on a 800×600 window should be shrunk... It is a good idea to try to maintain visual coherence by aligning the sizes of images and templates on a given page." Finally, being the uploader does not give anyone a preferential right to state where images are placed, how many are used in the article, or to work in contravention of established style guidelines without a legitimate rationale. Discuss here instead of reverting policy-based changes. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously we're right back to reverting and using edit summaries to have a non-discussion, which is not helpful at all. And no, the proposed compromise will not work because you've now sandwiched text between the infobox and the pictures. The fixed image widths still need to be removed. If there are too many images to fit in the article appropriately without breaking guidelines, then use a gallery. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  11:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think there should be a gallery for one picture? Isn't the point of not sandwiching to avoid difficulty reading the text. Do you think it is difficult to read the text the way the pictures were last arranged by me? User_talk:Spinerod


 * On my monitors at work and at home, no; however, you have to consider people with other monitor resolutions. If you fix the image widths at, say 200 pixels, then subtract 200 or 250 pixels for the infobox, and 120 pixels or more for the Wikipedia sidebar, you have very little area in which to put text. THIS is the major issue, and it's why the sandwiching is a problem. As to the gallery, I do not think that there should be a gallery for one picture, which is why I put the vertical image of the stands in the Transportation section. I think it's a great picture and should be included, but not at the expense of accessibility for readers. As an aside, please use four tildes ( ~ ) to sign your posts. Thanks. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  15:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Because of this whole picture ordeal I am regretting adding the scoreboard picture. I thought it would be nice for viewers to see the scoreboard. Especially for those people who have not actually been to the park. The sideline picture currently down by the references looks out of place. All being said my new thought is to have the scoreboard picture and the sideline picture at 200 pixels one on top of the other under the History heading. Acceptable? User_talk:Spinerod


 * It doesn't fix the problem. You still have fixed image widths, and the images are still sandwiching with the infobox. Regardless of which images you put there, they are still the same width. There is nothing wrong with the scoreboard picture; I think it's very valuable to the article. How about this suggestion: remove the fixed image widths and put one of the horizontal pictures (either the scoreboard or the River End) in the "Features" section and the other in the "Transportation" section (both right-aligned), and then put the upright picture on the left-hand side before "On January 31, 2008..." and use the  parameter to properly avoid as much sandwiching as possible. If you don't know how to implement what I'm suggesting, let me know and I can show you. &mdash;  KV5  •  Talk  •  16:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines frown on sandwiching between two pictures. It doesn't state sandwiching between a picture and the Info box. User_talk:Spinerod


 * It's the same concept (see also WP:COMMONSENSE). The infobox is as wide, or wider than, most images, so the same care has to be given to sandwiching. If the lead were expanded and more were written about the stadium, we probably would not have this issue. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  17:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Excerpt from the COMMONSENSE which you directed me to: "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." I would say a person's commonsense would be not to have that picture at the bottom of the page in References. User_talk:Spinerod


 * And what leads you to say that? Obviously you and I both want the pictures to be included in the article. Please note also that I did not put the picture in the References section. I put it in the Transportation section, which just caused it to run over into the References section. And in the References section, there is a lot of whitespace down the right-hand side to fill, unlike the rest of the article which is cramped with all of the images as they are currently shown. This isn't particularly a situation for WP:IAR, which says "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it". The reversions you made aren't improvements; they are detrimental to readers. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yo dude. This is out of hand. Here's my phone number. Let's talk it over like men. User_talk:Spinerod


 * I've redacted your personal information out of consideration for the fact that this is a public forum. This is the appropriate forum for this discussion, however; not off-wiki. Besides, I'm at work. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  17:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So this is what you do when you're at work? You are ruining my day. User_talk:Spinerod


 * It's what I do on my lunch break, mostly. But if you're allowing something as simple as this to ruin your day, maybe you should take a step back for a while. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Long lunch break. If that is true you could pick up a phone. When you say "maybe you should take a step back for a while" you should look in a mirror. User_talk:Spinerod


 * I have no reason to speak to you outside of this forum. I'm also not going to let this degenerate into a personal argument, because that's not what it is nor what it should be. If you're unwilling to compromise in line with site guidelines, then so be it. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The recently proposed solution is better, but still not optimum; the caption for the "fans watching" picture still needs to be brought in line with MOS:CAP (I corrected it at least four times and it was made wrong each time) and the fixed image width should be removed in favor of the "upright" parameter. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  18:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

3O request
In response to the request for a 3rd opinion, I'd like to suggest the following. I think the 4 images are nice, and help to capture the stadium. However, I think the article could use an expansion of content in order to support the images. With that said though, the current state of the article seems to work fine as far as readability. Being careful to test issues of style raised by KV5, I've narrowed my browser, and there is no sandwiching of the text (the paragraph which has the image to it's left drops far below the infobox on the right). Having the image in the reference section is probably acceptable as well (but seemed a little unusual). I think the current placement will work. BigK HeX (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh ... as for the fixed image size, I think sometimes this can be helpful. I'm personally fine with the current look, but the fixed size could prove somewhat problematic for others.  If there is a standard convention against using fixed sizes, then I could opine more definitively, but I haven't seen guidelines advising that fixed sizes are to be avoided. BigK HeX (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:IMGSIZE]: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference". &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  00:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh... in reading that, it looks like the "upright" tag is likely the best substitute for the fixed image size. I'm guess that 170 pixels would be pretty close to what is there now, so I'm settling on recommending a change over to the "upright" tag.  BigK HeX (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)