Talk:Carisbrook
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
Someone needs to update the article in that it the new stadium has gained required funding and will go ahead
In case you're thinking this is a copy vio... edit
...yes, some of this does look suspiciously like part of the CricInfo article on Carisbrook. I wrote that article. Grutness|hello? 
05:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Just shows we need to make sure its neutral. - Purdonkurt
Terraces edit
There really ought to be a mention of the Terraces, as I believe that's become a unique feature of Carisbrook, when other stadiums have gone to all assigned seating. 66.68.106.103 03:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Article name edit
Why is this at Carisbrook (stadium) and not just Carisbrook? Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:51, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Sadly? edit
In the last paragraph, it mentions 'sadly' at the start. This is not neutral and brakes Wikipedia's 'policies'.
Therefore it will be changed.
Carisbook is still active edit
Why did someone change the article to say Carisbrook "was" from is (eg Carisbrook was Dunedin's major sporting venue) - it still exists and will host a test match in 2008. It need's quite a bit of a tidy up - has anyone got time for a re-write and to make it flow better!
New Stadium edit
A minor edit war broke out over what should be included in this article about the new stadium. I tend to think that it should be linked to the new stadium article, but should not go into too much detail on its development, cost, location etc. I have therefor trimmed it down to what is relevant to this article. I also removed some WP:Original Research from the preceding section and updated from a ODT article detailing the decision to sell the stadium after the World Cup. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't really an edit war - one new, inexperienced editor removed a reasonable amount of information from the article. According to the edit summaries, he removed the information because he felt it was advertorial in nature (hence, presumably, the removal of the "Forsyth Barr" part of the new stadium's name). To me, it seemed that all the information he removed was relevant - including, I must add, some that you have not reinstated to the article, despite it seeming appropriate for it (the name of the new stadium, its location, and some of the details of the costs). I reverted twice, as it seemed that all the information was worth having here. I then talked to the editor on his talk page, explaining why the information seemed appropriate given its nature and equivalent information on other articles, assuming good faith that the removals were simply through his lack of experience with articles of this nature (they were only Fooslayer's second and third edits to Wikipedia articles). I asked him to discuss matters here if he still felt that the information was inappropriate. It seems that, rather than attempting to find consensus, he has simply removed the information yet again. I would still suggest that the former version of the article, containing links to the new stadium's article and details of when and how it has been constructed, along with details of the Carisbrook Stadium Trust's involvement in the new stadium, are not only perfectly acceptable in the article but are an improvement on the current state of it. In fact, I would say that removing information relating to the Carisbrook Stadium Trust from an article on Carisbrook is baffling. I would ask you to look again at some of the material excised with the view of possibly re-adding it to the article. Grutness...wha? 11:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the reverting was a big deal either, but it did seem like it had the potential to escalate and I agree that the edit summaries were not too helpful. In hindsight I should have discussed here first before making the changes so I will self-revert the new stadium section back to its original version until we, hopefully along with Fooslayer and anyone else interested, can establish consensus. However I stand by most of my edits as the article was going off on a WP:Coatrack by detailing too much information that should belong just be in the Forsyth Barr article. I think the stadium should be linked and named as "Forsyth Barr Stadium". As to the location the article currently says the new stadium will be based in Awatea Street, Dunedin North, close to the north end of Anzac Avenue. It will thus be within the vicinity of the University of Otago and Otago Polytechnic, and close to the major sporting facilities of Logan Park and the University Oval. It will also be close to the mouth of the Water of Leith and the shore of the Otago Harbour, which is in my opinion too much detail for this article and could be shortened to simply Dunedin North. You are correct that the Carisbrook stadium trusts involvement should be mentioned, but I don't feel it needs to go into detail about the costs of the stadium. Here is the diff for reference [1]. AIRcorn (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Perhaps a compromise on the location of saying something like: "the new stadium will be based in Dunedin North, close to other major sporting facilities such as Logan Park and the University Oval."? At least that will give some indication of some of the reasons behind the shift. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- That is fine by me. How about this addition to the start of the section (from my previous diff [2]) On 9 August 2006, a proposal was announced that would see Carisbrook retired and a 30,000 capacity covered stadium built in Dunedin North, close to other major sporting facilities such as Logan Park and the University Oval. Construction and ownership of the new $198 million (NZD) stadium, officially named the Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza, will be overseen by the Carisbrook Stadium Trust. That covers the location, cost, name and Carisbrook Stadium Trust without any excessive detail. AIRcorn (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Perhaps a compromise on the location of saying something like: "the new stadium will be based in Dunedin North, close to other major sporting facilities such as Logan Park and the University Oval."? At least that will give some indication of some of the reasons behind the shift. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the reverting was a big deal either, but it did seem like it had the potential to escalate and I agree that the edit summaries were not too helpful. In hindsight I should have discussed here first before making the changes so I will self-revert the new stadium section back to its original version until we, hopefully along with Fooslayer and anyone else interested, can establish consensus. However I stand by most of my edits as the article was going off on a WP:Coatrack by detailing too much information that should belong just be in the Forsyth Barr article. I think the stadium should be linked and named as "Forsyth Barr Stadium". As to the location the article currently says the new stadium will be based in Awatea Street, Dunedin North, close to the north end of Anzac Avenue. It will thus be within the vicinity of the University of Otago and Otago Polytechnic, and close to the major sporting facilities of Logan Park and the University Oval. It will also be close to the mouth of the Water of Leith and the shore of the Otago Harbour, which is in my opinion too much detail for this article and could be shortened to simply Dunedin North. You are correct that the Carisbrook stadium trusts involvement should be mentioned, but I don't feel it needs to go into detail about the costs of the stadium. Here is the diff for reference [1]. AIRcorn (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Scottish Stand edit
In the 1930's was Clyde Hill known as the Scottish Stand because you could watch the match there for free? (from outside the grounds)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Carisbrook. 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/20081014011451/http://www.orfu.co.nz/page.pasp?pageid=20 to http://www.orfu.co.nz/page.pasp?pageid=20
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402095652/http://za.klikfc.com/article/144367/Goodbye-Carisbrook to http://za.klikfc.com/article/144367/Goodbye-Carisbrook
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.odt.co.nz/article.php?refid=2007,09,08,1,00100,ff5b0554e5fce1931a6eaf7bb049d0a6§=0 - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529124840/http://www.carisbrook.org.nz:80/ to http://www.carisbrook.org.nz/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070426023838/http://www.ourstadium.co.nz:80/ to http://www.ourstadium.co.nz/
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.otagorugbyteam.co.nz/page.pasp?pageid=8/
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 06:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)