Talk:Earls Court Exhibition Centre
|Events at Earls Court Exhibition Centre was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 29 December 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Earls Court Exhibition Centre. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earls Court Exhibition Centre article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Olympic events
- 2 Swimming pool
- 3 I have decided that Earls Court is an "entertainment venue"
- 4 Fair use rationale for Image:Trampled.JPG
- 5 Excessive/effusive praise and bias
- 6 Merge Events at Earls Court Exhibition Centre
- 7 Boat show and floor
- 8 Factual description of the venue, not a political sounding board
- 9 Biased section on Redevelopment
- 10 Money Interests: Understanding the price of everything . . .
- 11 Earls Court Exhibition Centre Is Closed
Haven't you heard the recent news reports? The London 2012 venue plan has been revised and Volleyball events moved to Earl's Court. They are diong this to allow more training facilities. Jim856796 06:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
One of the building's interesting features is a hydrologically raising and lowering floor in three sections in the main arena which when lowered can be filled with water to make one of Europe's largest indoor swimming pools. This was used to greatest effect at the London Boat show. Rjmunro 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have decided that Earls Court is an "entertainment venue"
I have decided that Earls Court is an "entertainment venue" and inserted this information into the lead paragraph, which is really supposed to state what the Earls Court EC is. You might say, "Oh, it should be obvious from the name", but the actual specific nature of the venue needs to be established up front and right away.
I mean, I have no idea WTF Earls Court is, which is why I went to this article. Shockingly, the lead paragraph concerns itself with train stations rather than the article's subject and what it might be. I guess it's an entertainment venue? I may change my guess at its nature in the future (a zoo, perhaps? a museum?) unless someone who actually knows stops in and helps this article out. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Trampled.JPG
Image:Trampled.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Excessive/effusive praise and bias
What's going on with this article? As it goes on, it becomes increasingly gushing. There are a few low-level bits which subtly impart an opinion such as "The striking new barrel-roofed hall which links with Earls Court One via folding shutters is large enough to hold four jumbo jets". Things deteriorate from there and some of the effusive praise for the building is downright bizarre. Who on earth thought it was encyclopaedic to add stuff like "Harvey Goldsmith’s courageous and visionary gamble caused The Times to reflect that it made'the Royal Albert Hall look like a studio theatre" to the article? Who says it was a courageous and visionary gamble? Even if all of this is quoted from The Times, there is no reference to reflect this.
- Most of the contents seems to have been copied from the official website: http://www.eco.co.uk/p/earls-court/21, which in turn is taken from the book "Earls Court and Olympia - Buffalo Bill to the 'Brits'" by John Glanfield. AdamMillerchip (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This was the case. It would have been more constructive to remove the emotive language, rather than delete the whole article. IT was all based on fact - just written in a naive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Given the need to avoid public attachment, it is little wonder that money interests would want to avoid "emotive" language about our land-mark building. And, in relation to our the international icon, the last thing you folks want is "effusive" praise. For would not a down-played/bland account of the facts do very nicely? Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Merge Events at Earls Court Exhibition Centre
I propose that Events at Earls Court Exhibition Centre be merged into Earls Court Exhibition Centre. The events section on the main page is too brief and the information on the events page contains listings of far too much uncited and non-notable events from the past. SheffGruff (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, it should be merged and some of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE stuff removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Boat show and floor
Correct me if I'm wrong but surely one of the more notable features of this venue is the 'removable' pool (and considerable mechanical infrastructure needed to create/remove it) that was used for events including the London Boat Show? SheffGruff (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Factual description of the venue, not a political sounding board
This article has recently been heavily edited to communicate objections to the proposed redevelopment of the Exhibition Centre. This article should simply be a fact-based summary of the venue and its history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
History of Earls Court Exhibition Centre - or pro-development spin?
Clearly, some would want this article to down-play the concerns of objections and become a sounding board for the development. They want Wikipedia to blandly highlight a 'fact-based' summary of Earls Court venue. And yet, should not any history/description of this iconic venue include something about opposition to it being knocked down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Biased section on Redevelopment
The section on redevelopment is biased and does not include notes from other parties, people or groups that support the redevelopment. Also the section is practically lifted from the BBC article relating to the opposition to the redevelopment. Also this is obviously being used as a political sounding board for someone who is anti the development.
This article should be neutral and state what the development is and why it is being proposed to demolish and create a new development and then move onto anther section about opposition if required but I think a quick one liner and reference that there is opposition should suffice. Currently most of the section is about opposition which is not acceptable. Nlao (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Nlao (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Money Interests: Understanding the price of everything . . .
So it would appear, there are some willing to use the Wikipedia Talk page as a political sounding board for pro-development public relations. And yet, what is wrong with reporting the number of Londoners that want the Earls Court Exhibition Centre retained? Or should Wikipedia act has an unpaid advert for greedy money interests?
Given there seems little wrong with highlighting the historic nature of this iconic building - and the part it has played in the life of London - does the end of this landmark have to be down-played or reported in a bland way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Earls Court Exhibition Centre Is Closed
To have 'Earl Court Exhibition Centre is a Venue' at the front of the article is incorrect and will mislead people who come to the page as it has closed. It misled me when I viewed the page and I was surprised the article was out of date.
I have corrected the article to explain it is no longer functioning as an Exhibition centre. This is confirmed from the Centre's own website . I have also added cited information on the last event to take place at the centre, as I think this is could be of interest. I do not understand why this has also been undone.
I am afraid I am not convinced that the article should say that the centre is still a venue, up until the building is demolished. Left unchanged it does not accurately reflect recent published articles about the closure of the centre. The Centre is now just a building and is not a venue. Fuzzything (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have made some modifications to these edits. Believe the current version is a fair compromise. --TBM10 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)