Talk:Wachovia Spectrum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basketball
Basketball Portal
Wachovia Spectrum is part of WikiProject College Basketball, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


WikiProject Philadelphia
Philadelphia Portal
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


Contents

[edit] Philadelphia Municipal Stadium

According to Chapter XXX ("MUNICIPAL STADIUM") on pages 419-423 of the Exposition's 520-page official record entitled "The Sesqui-Centennial International Exposition" by E.L Austin (Director-in-Chief) and Odell Hauser (Director of Publicity) published in 1929, the official name of the stadium when it opened in 1926 was "Philadelphia Municipal Stadium" and not "Sesqui-Centennial Stadium." Centpacrr 04:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Municipal Stadium erected within the grounds of the Sesqui-Centennial International Exposition and the scene of many of its most colorful events will long remain not only as a memorial of the Exposition but as a substanial contribution to the facilities of the city for staging large outdoor events and athletic games." "The Sesqui-Centennial International Exposition" by E.L Austin and Odell Hauser; Chapter XXX ("MUNICIPAL STADIUM") p. 419 Centpacrr 10:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WachSpectlogo.jpg

Image:WachSpectlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestling content

The wrestling content in this article is all but pointless and should be allowed to be removed, regardless of the objections of wrestling fan kids who put it into every artcle they can and try bulling those who object to it. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The content about guys who act like they're fighting is beneath sections on people who can throw a ball and people who can hit a puck (and fight). I see no reason why the wrestling content is any less important than the basketball or hockey.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, and as I had mentioned before, its not like we are talking about some Backyard Wrestling Group, its the WWF/E, which is defently something. I can understand taking out something listing every house show and televised Monday Night Raw/Smackdown (though making note that such events happen are ok), but Pay-Per-Views, and really, large orginizations like the WWF/E, WCW, etc. holding events there are ok. Even if most of the article was wrestling in general in the arena, and the rest being very little about hockey/basketball/whatever sport is held in there, I would belive it to still be acceptable, its just that the wrestling aspect has been covered better than anything else.
I also do find the argument however, of wrestling being nothing more than pointless as nothing more than a bad argument. What if there is one thing that Group A considered ok, and Person B, regardless of what most everyone says, claims something to be pointless? That would mean a whole lot of stuff being taken off.
At the least, I would agree with at the most, maybe a note saying that wrestling events were held there, but to delete it because its pointless?
And from what I have said, this is coming from someone (me) who does find wrestling, at least lately, to be nothing more than garbage, but I do at least respect something being mentioned about something being held there, if it is at least notable.
Sorry for being a bit long winded.Whammies Were Here 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If the wrestling kids want to add wrestling content to every article imaginable, maybe they need to start their own little wrestling Wiki and leave the general-interest encyclopedia alone. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. You haven't even responded to my question as to why the "hockey kids" and the "basketball kids" get to have their information in the article, but the "wrestling kids" don't. --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Basketball and hockey are sports. Professional wrestling is not. As so many in your generation are saying these days, thank you, drive through. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's try this again; please read WP:CIVIL. Whether or not wrestling is a sport is irrelevant; what is relevant is WP:NOTE, which asks merely that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Which it has. It's actually more of a form of acting, which has a several-thousand-year history of being more notable than sports.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's try this again; basketball and hockey are sports, professional wrestling is not. Pro wrestling is as relevant to an article regarding a sporting venue as a circus would be. A general-interest encyclopedia suffers when niche content is inserted willy-nilly by fans of said content. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What happens at a sporting venue is relevant to that sporting venue. If circus events regularly took place there, or a major circus event took place there, then it should be in the article. I note you didn't remove the section on music events that take place there. Wikipedia suffers when people go through removing anything on a subject because they don't like and attack anyone who supports it as being a "fan kid".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia suffers when "fan kids" run roughshod on a general interest encyclopedia and add inconsequential and fringe-interest content. Nothing any of the fan kids has said in any way justifies wrestling content being strong-armed into Wikipedia articles by zealous followers of said pseudo-sport. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never edited on wrestling before on Wikipedia, or any other sport, but hey, if that's what it's going to take, I think the two of us can strong-arm you over this issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Admitting that you are not editing in good faith probably won't help your cause, genius. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say that he is not editing in good faith? Whammies Were Here 01:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, as has been said, this is not like the WWF/E was running some house show, and the article was giving very detailed information about it, what was on there I belive (and most anybody else will belive) was a fair amount of info without going overboard on it. If your gonna delete that on the premise that since we are talking about a sports venue, that non-sports venues should not be in the article, then why not, for example, delete the music part on it too. Whammies Were Here 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am editing in good faith; I'm merely tired of dealing with someone who fails to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and continues to delete text from an article against consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The "consensus" is a couple of accounts that quite possibly belong to the same wrestling kid, backed up by a brand-new admin who has a talk page full of complaints regarding his conduct since being given admin status. That's less a "consensus" and more of a typical Wikipedia strongarming. As your murderous hero Chris Benoit was fond of saying, "Prove me wrong". Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If you believe that I and User:PYLrulz are the same person, you can use Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. But we've both been here for years, and our differing writing styles and contribution histories should dismiss any real suspicion that we are socks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what else I can say. If your gonna keep on resorting to name calling and outlandish claims, I dont think having the issue being mediated will even help, but I am doing just that. Hopefully we can be able to get this issue solved soon. Whammies Were Here 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why wrestling should be omitted from the article. Looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I personally don't get professionally wrestling. And I have, in the past, extinguished overly zealous and overly inclusive categories listing every bumf*** arena that hosted a wrestling event. However it obviously a notable form of entertainment and as a transplant into the Philadelphia area I can understand the city's ties to it. If reliable sources can be cited (and I'm certain they can), then the Spectrum's role as a flagship venue is certainly notable. .ccwaters (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I still have yet to see anything justifying including wrestling content in this or any other sporting venue article. Looks like a case of WP:ILIKEIT. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Major televised events drawing large crowds in person and large audiences on TV are notable and should be noted in the article. You've yet to justify why this is different from the music content, which is also not a sport.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The wrestling section is just as legitimate as the music section. Please don't delete content unless there is a consensus that it doesn't belong. OhNoitsJamie Talk 07:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If a "consensus" was required to edit or remove content on Wikipedia, nothing would ever be edited or deleted. It's sad when wrestling kids and their friends have to make things up. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You have yet to cite any relevant Wikipedia policies relating to removal of the content. I have not interest in wrestling whatsoever, but I will enforce Wikipedia policies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You have yet to cite any relevant Wikipedia policies relating to why it would be wrong to remove non-notable information regarding a fringe form of "entertainment" from an article about a sporting venue. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. WWE/WWF/whatever-you-call-it easily meets WP:Notability standards, regardless of whether you consider it a sport or theater/entertainment. I'm confident that most editors, wrestling fans or not, would agree. As I said before, I'm not a wrestling fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't pretend that wrestling doesn't have a large following and isn't notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Paul- I don't like wrestling. ccwaters (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't much care for being accused of "blanking" or other vandalism, especially when non-notable content is removed from Wikipedia on an hourly basis. I had no idea that some people take so seriously content related to their little hobby, but harassing a disagreeing editor with "warnings" does not seem to be what Wikipedia is about. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you fail to cite any relevant policy to support deletion of the content. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself once again - It's not notable to insert pro wrestling trivia into every article possible. There is a PW Wikia that these kids could use to their hearts' content instead of filling a general-interest encyclopedia with "facts" about their hobby. The last time I checked, it wasn't a required step to "cite any relevant policy" to remove non-notable content from an article. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph simply acknowledges that major wrestling events took place at the arena, much like the sections on other sports and entertainment. It's as notable a form of entertainment as the other entries. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay I'm just going to throw my 2 cents in. I stumbled upon this issue after I found Paul removing wrestling events from the RCA Dome page. First off I'm just going to make this blatantly clear; I hate wrestling so I cannot be accused of bias towards it. Anyway Paul whether you agree or not these events are notable and should remain in the article. Just because you obviously have something against wrestling does not make it ok to continue removing this content. HoosierStateTalk 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding my opinion because I have to. Honestly, I am offended by the wrestling kids etc comments. The problem is people here are comparing wrestling to sport. I am a wrestling fan, and take wrestling for what it is, a highly notable, big business entertainment industry. If we notate in arena articles major concerts that occured there, it is not unheard of to add relevant information over a major event that took place at the arena. LessThanClippers (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And it turns out that Paul was a sockpuppet (which I find extremly hilarious, since he did try and claim that me and one other user had some kind of sockpuppetry going on). I guess we can consider the issue dead now, and just determine that it was some former user that was just trying to raise some trouble. Whammies Were Here 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if another user popped up with a similar editing agenda (and claims of harassment from the notorious "wikiclique"). If that happens, feel free to post to the admin noticeboard and reference the Chadbryant sockpuppet case. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
10-4, over and out :) Whammies Were Here 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edit

Hey - in the first line, there's a missing closing bracket (I think) after the years it was called First Union Spectrum - it closes the years, but not the formerly known as statement. I'd probably change the overall enclosure to a comma, like "blah blah, formerly known as First Union Center(year-year)," but it's protected.

If I'm missing something, sorry. - David DiBattiste (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)