Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 9 January 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. College football This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: Texas This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. Template:WikiProject Texas A&M

Largest Training/Rehab facility Claim

I put a "citation needed" up a few days ago and still haven't seen a response. I am pulling the claim. If you want to put the claim back up please cite the source. Dothivalla 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Original Cost

Under cost, Kyle Field was listed as $300,000. This is misleading because the most recent expansion was significantly more than $1 million. Unless someone objects, I recommend changing it to "Original Cost" or "Initial Construction Cost".

Size Vandalization

Someone keeps reducing the offical capacity of Kyle field to 80k, and increasing the offical capacity of DKR (the univ of texas stadium) to 85k. The offical numbers on capacity are 82,650 for KF, and just over 80k for DKR.

Until the improvements to DKR are completed, or Texas changes their offically listed capacity, there is no reason to vandalize either article by posting false claims. --Ancalagon06 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The offical website for UT football lists the capacity of DKR at 85,123.. The official Kyle Field page lists its capacity as 82,600. Johntex\ 14:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

HD

Since 12th Man TV has been merged here, I am copying the following discussion from the Talk page.

please keep the part about it being NOT HD.
This does not meet the criteria for a high definition television which includes a minimum specification of 720x1280 for a total of at least 921,600 pixels. Corpx 06:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I think it is useful information. Readers will naturally want to know if such a big screen is high definition, or they may even just assume that any screen that big must be high-definition. The comparison of the number of pixels in this screen and the number of pixels defined in the high definition standard is useful information. Johntex\ 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not HDTV, but is high resolution. If we're getting technical on these articles, it is my understanding that UT does not yet have the capability to record and transmit an HD signal to their screen. Is that confirmed? -Texink 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are absolutely supposed to be getting technical with these articles. It is an encyclopedia, after all!

As far as I know "high resolution" does not have an agreed upon definition. What definition are you using for "high resolution" and what is your source for that definition? The ATSC provides a definition for "high definition television" so this is a defined term.

If "high resolution" does not have an agreed-upon definition, then the phrase is just like "high quality" or "amazing sound" and it should be ommitted. As far as I can see, the one reference currently usded for this article does not use the phrase "high resolution".

As far as Godzillatron, I think you are referring to a rumor that was dispelled. What happened was in the first game, UT received a lot of complaints that they were using less than half of the screen to show video. Someone from the athletics department claimed that this was because they were missing a part. However, that explanation was soon revealed to be bogus. They were not missing a part, they just wanted to show a lot of adds. Johntex\ 01:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

at the ohio state game, godzillatron displayed standard def video, but it was stretched to fit the area inside the ad border. at the iowa state game, high def video was displayed on the screen, along with high def replays Corpx 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Above discussion bopied from Talk:12th Man TV

I think we should remove the part about the Godzillatron. There is no need for it to be explicitly stated here. Thoughts?

• Somewhere along the line, someone reinserted the claim that this TV is cable of high-definition video. I removed the claim again since it is not true. Johntex\ 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Johntex, yes it is capable of displaying a HD signal. http://www.aggieathletics.com/pressRelease.php?PRID=11654, but one must note that there are 2 issues here.

1. The signal itself can be displayed: though some people get an HD signal in their homes, they cannot use these channels because they do not have the capability to display an HD signal.
2. Then there is the quality displayed. A&M's screen has the capability to display 480p resolution images. While this is definitely the lower end of HD, it is still an HD signal that can be displayed.

Let's not get into a revert war. BQZip01 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we won't have a revert war as long as you don't revert me.  :-) Seriously, if you read our article (or any other reputable source) on High Definition, you will notice that 480p does not count as High Definition. 480p is "enhanced definition". Even the original X-Box, the PS2, and most current DVD players can do 480p. It is not High Definition. High Definition begins at 780p. Johntex\ 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, I've never actually read anything that states that 12th Man TV is actually a 480p screen. Most people that are attempting to change this article back to stating that the screen is HD-capable are probability using this as a source: (look at the second section, just after the introduction). While I can't find where I read this, I've read that the total resolution of the screen was 1024x768. This presents a problem when trying to describe it as SDTV, EDTV or HDTV: that resolution is enough more than standard SDTV and EDTV resolutions that I would say merely calling the screen EDTV is inaccurate; likewise, that doesn't conform to any HD spec that I'm aware of, and, as such, calling it HD doesn't really work either. I would say that it's best to just remove any mention of this issue from the article all together - having two paragraphs about screen resolution in an article about a football stadium seems absurd, and I don't know if we can do a good, accurate description of the screen's capabilities in less. -EdisonLBM 16:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Our article says that the Kyle Field screen has 590,000 pixels.

The minimum standard for HDTV is 720x1280 for a total of at least 921,600 pixels. Let's look at just pixel counts for a moment and ignore other portions of the standard such as aspect ratio, refresh rate, etc.

• If our article is right and the screen has 590,000 pixels that would be 64% of the 921,600 required for high definition.
• If you can find a source that says the screen really has 1024x768 that is the XGA standard. 1024x768 works out to 786,432 pixels, which would be 85.3% of the number required for high definition.

So, either way it is not high definition. For the article, we could simply say that the screen has "higher resolution than Enhanced-definition television but less resolution than High-definition television". Johntex\ 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting bit on that press release's pixel count not matching the 1024x768 number - I could swear that I had read that from some place reputable - perhaps that's the count of only the part of the screen used for video during a football game (and not counting the part used only for the scoreboard)? At any rate, I'm not sure that it matters, as I think we can all agree that the screen is somewhere between EDTV and HDTV at this point. I think your sentence works well enough.. I would phrase it something along the lines of ".. has a resolution in between that of Enhanced-definition television and High-definition television" just because I think that sounds smoother, but that's just getting picky and I really would say that your way of saying it is factually accurate based on the information we've dug up.

Since it seems that there has been at least one other user looking at this part of the article recently, I'll wait until tomorrow to give them a chance to weigh in before I make the change. - EdisonLBM 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Your wording is fine with me. Johntex\ 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

Looks like Kyle is going to get expanded in the near future. Someone want to add this information? I'm too busy right now. Blueag9 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's already there. The article says 'In late 2004, various expansion plans for Kyle Field were communicated to the public, with the final capacity possibly expanding to 115,000. The expansion plans are indefinite with university officials saying, “Anything could happen, but there’s no definitive time line to make this go. It’s a vision, and much of it depends on the success of the football program.'" Johntex\ 15:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyle Field as a Living Memorial

On game days, about 55 US Flags are flown from the top decks of Kyle Field. These flags represent the 55 Aggies killed defending our country during World War I. This is also why the Corps of Cadets stands together in uniform, again showing patriotism and respect to those Aggies who gave their lives in defense of our freedom.

• I added this info with sources to the header section.Karanacs 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

12th Man

Would someone want to add a section briefly talking about the 12th Man? I think it's important that we mention who the 12th Man is (since Kyle Field is the home of..), and talk about the huge number of tickets set aside for students (unlike at that other school in Austin). Maybe we could also bring up the College GameDay appearances, and some of the info that is in the introduction. I've already done a lot of tweaking today, so if someone else has time to write this I'd be thankful! Gig 'em! Karanacs 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Field Capacity

I restored cited information about Kyle Field previously being the largest in the state but now being the second largest. This is certainly a topic we can expect readers to care about. It may be better somewhere else besides the lead, but the lead is really short so I left it there. Johntex\ 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is a fact, it's POV, since half the sentence refers to another stadium for another school. Perhaps a link to a page with the largest college stadiums would be less POV (you don't need to show how A&M is less than your alma mater. Seems kind of petty and unnecessary to add it to every webpage including "Kyle Field") BQZip01 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please by careful with saying words like "petty", they don't aid the conversation. A fact by itseld is not POV. Giving a fact undue weight can be POV. As I mentioned, I have no objection to moving the information further down the page. You may not be aware of the history of the article. There was a time when authors kept trying to say that Kyle Field is the largest in the state. If authors are mistaken about this, other readers surely will be as well. Adding the information to the article helps inform these misinformed people. Johntex\ 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not say that it is the largest in the state (and yes I saw the discussion), but to point out that it is second to DKR is POV IMHO. I have NO problem whatsoever stating it is the second largest (it is), but DKR has little place on the Kyle Field page (and vice versa). We won't be having this problem once they build Kyle Dome (capacity 185,000+). Special waivers from NASA as it interferes with Satellite orbits. The 6 jumbotrons having from the ceiling show the game to those who can't see well up in the coulds on 4th & 5th deck...just kidding, but my point is that a reference to DKR is unnecesary. BQZip01 08:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you had me going until the 6 jumbotrons. Surely a stadium like that would have at least 9 jumbotrons.  :-) I think it would be awesome for any stadium in Texas to eclipse those guys in Michingan, Tennessee, etc. The Lone Star State deserves the biggest stadium.

I think a good solution would be to find or create a list of the biggest college football venues. Then we can leave in mention of it being second biggest in the state, leave the reference (since it supports the standing within the state), but link to the list instead of to DKR. If they want to know what the biggest stadium is they can either consult the reference or the list. Johntex\ 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you look at Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium - it says it is the 3rd biggest in the Big12, and prominently lists both DKR and Kyle Field in the lead. Johntex\ 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO it doesn't need to be there either, but unless there is an objection, I guess we can leave it, but yeah, leave the link and take out DKR is fine with me. BQZip01 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have posted at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football#Stadiums and attendance my intention to create a List of college football stadiums. A draft is already available at User:PSUMark2006/Sandbox2. As soon as this moves to article space, I will swap out the link. Johntex\ 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect!!! BQZip01 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The list is now available at List of Division I-FBS college football stadiums. It is still growing, but I went ahead and made the change to this article. Johntex\ 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1904 or 1927?

The infobox currently says that Kyle Field was built in 1904, but the athletic department dates the current facility to 1927. Seems to me that it would be more accurate to say that football has been played at the current site since 1904, or at least the stadium has existed in rudimentary form since then. This appears to be a similar situation to Cincy's Nippert Stadium, which was built in 1924. Blueboy96 10:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...didn't see this one earlier. The current concrete structure first was built in 1927 but a facility existed prior to that. Hope that answers your question. — BQZip01 —  02:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Field Expansion Photo

Is there any reasoning for including this photo in the article? As far as I know, there have never been any discussions about expanding the stadium to include a fourth deck and given that, I think it misleads readers into believing the photo represents a realistic view of a future expansion. -Texink 02:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wraparound seating in The Zone and a fourth deck have both been discussed. No consensus has yet been reached. Fourth deck (as shown in the computer generated image), may be nothing more than luxury boxes. — BQZip01 —  02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that an entire fourth deck has been discussed, as is insinuated by the photo? -Texink 03:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the article I read. I think it was in the Houston Chronicle, but, of course, I don't have access to their archives without paying a little. If you look at the pictures in this article, they show, not just a single level of luxury boxes, but three layers (how they could see the field, I don't know). This easily would have the capacity for another deck. Again, though, it is just a rendition, not a defined design that WILL be built and is used for illustrative purposes only. — BQZip01 —  03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I still would like to see a source before we include what I still believe is a misleading photoshop and pure fantasy. Every material I've read on expansion discusses building a south end zone without mention of a fourth deck. -Texink 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article talks about expanding to six decks (but that may include 3 of those decks being luxury boxes), but there's the prima facia case for 6 decks. I think 4 is simply an impression of the description. I don't want this to turn into an argument. It is one artist's conception of how it COULD look during its expansion, not how it is GOING to look. As long as the disclaimer is there, I don't see a problem. Additionally, there are no overhead shots of the stadium and this is the only one. Thoughts? — BQZip01 —  03:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious we're not going to agree on this as long as you think an illustration with four decks is a possible expansion plan, which it is not. I still believe the photo should be removed based on a lack of documentation that a fourth deck is even a possibility. I could add a dome to that photograph and call it "expansion" and it would fit your vague criteria of "how it COULD look..." -Texink 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This photo is satirical and should be removed. The intent of the photo editor was to lampoon Kyle's existing third deck with its steep pitch and seemingly endless access/egress ramps by adding fourth decks which would be even more extreme. Actual plans to expand Kyle center around permanent seating in the south endzone. Cbellomy 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the expansion also calls for additional sky boxes above third deck, though their configuration (skyboxes or traditional seating) certainly hasn't been determined. As for the photoshopped image, determining the author's intent...well, maybe you should ask? — BQZip01 —  11:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that sky boxes are not the same thing as an entire deck. There have never been plans of adding a complete fourth deck as far as you have produced evidence. -Texink 06:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am just going to add that the photo itself is a terrible photoshop job if I have ever seen one and an all around eye sore on the page.-Pirates010 03:35, 20 December 2007

Concur. -Texink 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_7#Image:Kyle_Field_Expansion.jpg—G716 <·_C> 05:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OR and POV in "Intimidating venue" section

First, let me state that I object to your immediate reverts to my edits under WP:OWN. You clearly did not take time to understand the objections I was making without automatically reverting them. Most of the information in this section is WP:OR, meaning that it is somebody's opinion and is not (and cannot be) supported by citation. Secondly, saying that a reputation was deserved or not is also WP:OR and the statistics that follow are therefore irrelevant since they don't have anything to do with the information about the venue. Last, the title "Intimidating venue" is POV since it is somebody's opinion and is not supported by citation. Attempting to support the section header with sources that claim people have been intimidated or that the crowd and fan levels are high is synthesis and also cannot be included. If you revert these edits again I will make an RfC and, if necessary, RfMs and RfAs because of BQZip01's many and numeous violations of WP:OWN. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class college football articles
• Unknown-importance college football articles
• WikiProject College football articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Texas articles
• Unknown-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles