Talk:Hadlock Field

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hadlock Field. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301084958/http://www.sheridancorp.com/image_upload/HadlockProfile2.pdf to http://www.sheridancorp.com/image_upload/HadlockProfile2.pdf

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 20:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on image deletions

@Seasider53 and Namiba: Please use this space to pursue the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle optional strategy to seek a consensus on the images which you've been going back and forth about. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No valid reason has been given for removing long-standing images on this article. I invite User:Seasider53 to provide policy-based rationale rather than engaging in edit-warring.--User:Namiba 19:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I gave two reasons in my edit summaries: they don't detail any changes, contrary to what you claimed, and there is a Wikimedia Commons link for images that serve no apparent purpose in the article. And which policy are you referring to regarding the length of time the images have been present in the article and, thus, should not be removed? Seasider53 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't claim, as you do, that the age of the photo makes a difference. As I wrote in the edit summary, "These images present unique perspectives of the stadium, especially from the field level." One of the images shows a game being played from the view of the third baseline and the other shows the stadium from a deep right field angle. None of the present images provide views of the stadium from these angles, which is why they should be kept. The age of the photos is actually a benefit for anyone interested in seeing how the stadium has changed over time. Lastly, five images is not an unreasonable number for an article of this size. WP:GALLERY states "Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." Since the existence of a gallery is not disputed and, as I have described above, these images "add to the reader's understanding of the subject," there is no reason to remove them.--User:Namiba 19:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How are they "unique" views when anyone on the stadium has the ability to achieve these viewpoints? If I'm missing some development that occured that blocks the view ("showing change over time is what we do"), then obviously their inclusion might be warranted. We can't assume what the reader wants to see, which is why the link I mentioned exists. Seasider53 (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

They are unique because the other photos in the gallery do not include them. Who is talking about anyone at the stadium? By your logic, there should be no photos whatsoever since "we can't assume what the reader wants to see".--20:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC) User:Namiba 20:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

So, not unique, just another word to try to shoehorn random (and terrible) images in of a building that isn’t even in the stadium. Seasider53 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Seasider53 why are you choosing to be so hostile and rude?--User:Namiba 13:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd vote to include the two contentious photos; they do show view of the stadium not presented elsewhere. PRRfan (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm being fairly critical here, but the photos are of fairly low quality, particularly File:PortlandSeadogs.JPG. Looking at MOS:IMAGEQUALITY.... Poor-quality images—dark or blurry (...) should not be used unless absolutely necessary. In my opinion, this image doesn't stand up to "being absolutely necessary" for the article. - Skipple ☎ 16:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The photo that depicts the Portland Exposition Building is useful to the article, as a portion of the stadium's infrastructure (the visiting team clubhouse) is located in the building. I would like to see that photo retained, but I am less committal about the other photo. Oswako (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A fair point. Better than "it's unique". Seasider53 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The actual quote is "unique perspectives of the stadium, especially from the field level." Try to WP:AGF and stop the hostile editing.--User:Namiba 19:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

For my 2¢, neither of them are great quality images, and the one from right curled doesn't really add anything as it doesn't really show anything about the ballpark that's uniquely identifying; it's an image of a third-base-side MiLB park sized grandstand with trees behind it that could be from any of dozens of minor league or college ballparks. It may be taken from the sizable and elevated right field seating section, which is an unusual feature at minor league ballparks, but it doesn't show that feature.

The one showing the Exposition Building in the right field corner does feature a prominent unique feature of the park, but the image quality isn't great because of the lighting glare. If we want an image focused on the Exposition Building, File:Sea Dogs vs. RubberDucks - August 16, 2015.png is a better choice, being clearer and brighter.

But both features are better documented by the wide-angle shot used in the infobox. Removing both images doesn't really negatively impact the article. Neither would removing the picnic area pic, which also has significant glare/lighting issues, and doesn't show much of the field. oknazevad (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)