Talk:CoolToday Park

Image Use

I'm going around and around on whether the image is relevant to the topic. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Braves_Spring_Training_Stadium If I'm wrong on this topic it's fine. Just need a third party to give it a look. I edited the caption to give context to the image. The same user still removed it. The user could be right, but the revert war is unproductive. The picture in question is a picture of a future location of a ball park. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It's an empty field showing grass, bushes and trees. There's nothing unique or identifying in the image itself, not even a sign saying "Future Spring Training Home of the Braves" or similar. Any photo of an empty field could be substituted, and no one would know the difference. - BilCat (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You opinion is referenced over and over on the article. Can someone else help with this question? The image is the future location and shows the undeveloped West Villages location. Nemov (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat, Nemov: Well, you've both violated the three revert rule x 3 (9 reverts each today I believe) in your edit war, and neither one of you have started a discussion on the talk page. After doing so and the issue cannot be resolved, you can seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion, and/or start a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. There's further ideas at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

As to the underlying issue, I'm somewhat torn. It's not "purely decorative" and as to MOS:PERTINENCE, it is relevant. It is the actual field as identified by the photographer, not some random field (meaning I think Bilcat's over-egged the pudding in claiming that this is literally no different than any other image of a random field) but is it "significant" when it's, well, just a fairly generic looking field; does seeing the actual field where something will be built, but has not yet been built, tell us much about the thing; does it increase our reader's understanding?

I think it does though not greatly. It's a hook for the content about the Stadium's yet-to-be-built status, and it also tells our readers some information about the ultimate location that is not just "empty field information". For one, we can see the location chosen is in a rural area with nothing around it for a long way, that is different information than, say, if it was of a field surrounded by buildings or there was lots of highways in view. But is it very significant? No. So if, for example, this article had many [other] relevant images and we were concerned about the number ("too many can be distracting"), then I would vote for this to go. As it is, though, I think it has a place. Feel free to transpose this post to the talk page discussion (though all of it or nothing), if you start it (as I urge you to do). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As is yours. I'm sorry, but however you know this, it's original research. I'm taking your word for it that its actually correct location, but how does anyone else know? Maybe you could put up a sign, and then take another photo. - BilCat (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Bilcat: we relax our standards for images. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Image description pages: "Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. If such sources are available, it is helpful to provide them."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been assuming good faith that this is the actual field. But it does look like any other field, which is my point. - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think an aerial photo would provide better context of the surrounding environment, not just the one direction in which a ground-level photo is taken. isaacl (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

North Port and Venice

I'll just note this as it's a current issue with West Villages, Florida: the ball park has a Venice zipcode while it is within the city limits of North Port. There's some news articles about the situation here and here. I'm just stating this as a note since I agree with the location stated as North Port but I wouldn't be surprised to see more random edits changing the city to Venice. – The Grid (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I live 30 minutes away and no one familiar with the location would consider the ballpark in Venice. The development is kind of in the middle of nowhere, but it's in North Port and the city is footing some of the bill. The Venice mailing address just confuses the situation. This was an issue with the SunTrust Park page as well since the ballpark is in the Atlanta metro area, has an Atlanta mailing address, but it's in Cumberland, GA. After going back and forth we just left off the city/zip in the address. I think that's an acceptable solution.Nemov (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I live nearby the area too so I never understood the Venice zipcode especially when you pass-by "North Port Welcomes You" monuments on the way to the area. Oddly enough, the SCF campus nearby is considered "SCF Venice" (and probably to prevent confusion with the North Port satellite campus). – The Grid (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)