Talk:FieldTurf

Untitled

I have included every Professional arena that uses FieldTurf, with the exception of Yokohama Field which didn't have a page so I didn't know (I mean, I know that Yokohama is gargantuan so I assume their field must be pretty important in Japan) if it counts as a major stadium. I applied a few college football arenas based on the few historical arenas that they are actually in, but there are others. I didn't know if the list should become a mile long so I throw it to the talk page for discussion.

Oh, and there are a few soccer teams that could make the list but I have no way of knowing whether or not these teams rate as significant or not.

Here's the webpage to check the list and see if there are any others you think should make it on. Fieldturf High Profile Installations --TheGrza 06:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Brand specific pages

To 24.126.238.10,

This page is specific to one product and not a generic page.

I added RealGrass to the artificial turf page. It would be appropriate to start a product specific page for RealGrass and I would be happy to help you with that if you like.

1/1/06:

I am the contributor at 24.126.238.10. Yes, I would like help in launching a separate entry for RealGrass, as soon as I gather the necessary information for it. Thank you for your consideration.

Half of the "facts" in this article are wrong and it is obvious that competitors of FieldTurf are populating this page with nonsense. Can an editor please write back to me so we can discuss how to clean up this page so that it is truly unbiased.JaySmo 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Firestone Tires at Ford Field? Sounds dubious

"The Ford Field installation differs from the standard installation as the recycled rubber used is made from recalled Firestone tires." I looked around and didn't find any coraboration for this potentially ironic claim. (Ford Motor Company recalled many vehicals due to problems with Firestone tires.) Crag 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I took it out meantime Guinnog 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I see it's been reverted; it's coming down unless you can supply a cite. Guinnog 20:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It was a stipulation in the deal with Fieldturf. I have direct contact with the company and any information I add to this pages is a result of that contact. -- Coz

Europe

"many European clubs are considering installing it"

I flagged this one up for a cite too. Sorry to be a pain, but I find the article way too positive. Here in Scotland, and I think in Europe in general, artificial turf has a long way to go to being accepted. Guinnog 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Again, it's coming down unless it can be verified. Guinnog 18:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I contacted the company, they are in various stages of negotiations with many clubs. -- Coz

• • Not that I don't believe you, but can you provide a more encyclopedic reference for that? It doesn't seem to appear on the firm's website.Guinnog 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • My "research" consisted of talking with the company president about watching the upcoming Seahawks playoff game and he said he was going to be in Europe on negotiations but had found an adult beverage establishment that would carry the game. While I won't mention club names his response would verify the statement that was made.

• • • • You dumb shit; Wikipedia does NOT allow Original Research.

Please read WP:NPA and read it VERY carefully. Please do not make personal attacks against other editors, continuation of such behaviour will lead to you being blocked from editing here at wikipedia. Thanks, SFC9394 09:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate List of FieldTurf installations article?

This list is too long. Can we make a separate article for it? One has to ask, does it even belong here at all? Guinnog 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea to move the "lessor" installs to another page. -- Coz

• • So which would be the most important of the ones there at present? Guinnog 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • I'm about to do this. The article is in danger of just becoming a list. Two or three high profile installations would be plenty for the main article. Guinnog 20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

original research

It may just be me but hearing something from a guy or having contacts in an organisation sounds awfully like original research which may just come into conflict with wikipedia guidelines. Anyone? Cesar.vialpando 05:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Guinnog 07:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Injury reduction

I thought that the selling point for all the AstroTurf alternatives was that they reduce the number of injuries and wear on the body, but there is no mention here. I'd like to hear more about how it works and what players think about it. Skidmark 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, there have been numerous studies by synthetic turf companies to prove this very point, none of the studies were conclusive enough to prove that artificial turf is better or worse than natural grass in the prevention of injuries. Tygast411 13:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand Skidmark's question, he's speaking of alternatives TO astroturf, not 'fake turf' vs. real soil. Please respond tot hat question. Thank you. ThuranX 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the question you're asking. To answer the question you'll have to understand the names of the original and current product line. The original product was simply called AstroTurf. The current product line consists of several different and more advanced products, GameDay Grass, PureGrass, etc... So any synthetic turf alternative to the current AstroTurf products aren't any safer and vice-versa. Hope that helps. Tygast411 01:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Special Shoes

I thought players needed special cleats to play on this surface? Maybe Im wrong and it was an older surface, but I always remember the college football pugnauts saying that the Oregon ducks Autzen Stadium always needed special shoes (cheap advantage)... Thanks Steve

It depends on the depth of the field. Some products are very shallow which would need smaller studded shoes. Other products that mimic natural grass have much deeper root zones which allow for regular cleats. Tygast411 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Isn't it a little inaccurate to lead the readers into believing that SRI duplicated the FieldTurf product, when the US court system found SRI innocent of all charges and made FieldTurf pay 4.3 million in legal fees? Tygast411 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Product"

The claim: "FieldTurf is a major synthetic turf competitor, contributing to the replacement of what was once the most popular artificial turf, [[AstroTurf]." is purely subjective and adds no encyclopedic value to the FieldTurf article. Tygast411 14:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

done --Selket ^Talk 06:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Selket. Can you look into the concerns I have regarding the "Lawsuit" section (see above) as well? Tygast411 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

yup --Selket ^Talk 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, but you added your version to the "Product" section instead of editing the statement in the "Business" section. Tygast411 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Business section

I don't think the sentance or two on the lawsuit deserves a special section, especially one titled buisness. It just doesn't make sense to me. --Selket ^Talk 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but you probably expected that. It would be my suggestion to remove it entirely, but if there's a consensus for it to stay then it definetly needs to be neutralized to say the least (as you've done. Thanks). There are probably three places where citations would be needed to prove it's accuracy, two sources are already provided but neither of those sources states that AstroTurf introduced the questionable product after FieldTurf had which implies that FieldTurf had a better product. And if it stays, then how about including the other side of the story from a source already referenced that states:

The November, 2000 verdict arose from a jury’s finding that FieldTurf was guilty of false advertising and breach of contract. In conjunction with the November, 2000 trial, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that FieldTurf and its CEO John Gilman acted in bad faith and engaged in conduct that was intended to prevent a fair trial and constituted obstruction of justice in a Federal Court proceeding.

Adding in legal and courtroom details is going to open a can of worms for FieldTurf since they have been in numerous litigations with just about every synthetic turf provider, not just AstroTurf.etc... I will leave the decision up to you. Ben 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Installations

"Super Bowl XL, featuring the Seahawks and the Pittsburgh Steelers, marked the first time that the Super Bowl has been played on this new generation turf."

I'd like to post a concern about the use of adjectives to describe a product instead of the product name. The confusion is that the SuperBowl was first played on AstroTurf back in 1974 (Miami Dolphins v. Minnesota Vikings Super Bowl VIII – Rice Stadium, Houston, TX.) and in 1974, it could have been considered "new generation turf". It would be more accurate and less confusing to simply change the existing language into the product name. It could also use a citation.

I'm also attempting to add references for all of the installations on the AstroTurf article, could you post on the FieldTurf article where you feel citations are needed? Thanks, Ben 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement is "This" new generation turf not "A" new generation turf. There is nothing wrong with the reference. --Coz 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No where in the article does it define what "new generation turf" is. When does a turf become "new generation"? When does it become old? It's misleading. The AstroTurf statement: "Super Bowl VIII, featuring the Dolphins and the Vikings, marked the first time that the Super Bowl has been played on this new generation turf is just as valid as the original FieldTurf statement, and thus causes confusion and misrepresentation of the facts. I still suggest it be removed and changed to the product name.

I can see what you are getting at, but when Artificial Turf was used in Super Bowl VIII (I assuming your reference is correct) it was the first time instead of natural grass. In this case it was the next generation of artifical turf. I don't have a problem with it being re-worded to be clearer, but it shouldn't be deleted. --Coz 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you not understand that the term "next generation" is a marketing term and purely subjective? An example would be if AstroTurf started describing one of their products as the "future generation" of artificial grass. Then AstroTurf could market it like FieldTurf does and could claim it to be "newer" and "more advanced" than FieldTurf's out-dated artificial turf. Then AstroTurf could start claiming all these new "firsts" for the "future generation" of turf, like "Super Bowl C, marked the first time that the Super Bowl has been played on this future generation grass." So...

If you don't have a problem with rewording it to be neutral then change it to read:

The 2006 Super Bowl (Super Bowl XL), was the first time that FieldTurf was used in a Super Bowl.

Another option:

The first time that FieldTurf was used in a Super Bowl was Super Bowl XL, in 2006.

--Ben 15:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, you reverted a bunch of changes made by WP admin and moderators. They will probably be contacting you shortly to discourage further edits. Ben 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It won't be a problem, I'll clean up my mess.  ;-) --Coz 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Other than adding two references (without reference tags) I don't see where any neutralizing changes were made. Ben 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

References

PR-speak is back

This article is back to reading like a well crafted press release from a PR company. I think we can do a lot better. --Selket ^Talk 22:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting the wholesale deletion of content. I agree we can do better at wording and sourcing but I prefer that the content be left in an article and cleaned up. I'll be happy to help where I can. --Coz 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable, Coz. You just added some more content with a pro-FieldTurf/anti-SRI(AstroTurf) spin without a verifyable reference.

The Oregon Ducks in 2001 installed NexTurf in Autzen Stadium but the surface did not perform as expected and during the remodel in 2002 it was scrapped and they replaced the surface with Field Turf.

Would it not have been enough for you to simply state that "FieldTurf was installed at Autzen Stadium in 2002"? I'm sitting here transparently trying to abide by the policies, watching you continue to edit with obvious bias. --Ben 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I will be posting a reference. My link to the original article was via a local paper that has since shut down so I must now dig out the origional article. I have no bias against your clients but the two products lines share common traits only in the same way as Mercedes and Kia are both cars. There is a reason Field Turf has become the new standard and this is just one of many facilities that removed other brands and replaced it with the "standard". --Coz 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have an obvious affinity for FieldTurf, you've made that very clear on WP as well as elsewhere on the web. You also don't have a very good understanding of the AstroTurf product offerings. (Feel free to visit the AstroTurf talk page where I have posted information as well as photos of several current AstroTurf products.) It's going to be tough for you to make a claim that AstroTurf is nothing like FieldTurf and at the same time have a court case reference on the FieldTurf article describing FieldTurf's attempt to sue AstroTurf for allegedly duplicating the FieldTurf product. So which is it?

But I'm not going to continue sitting here and argue with you over which turf is better by spewing warped analogies. That sort of unproductive discussion is waste of time. My time is better served to make both articles as neutral and accurate as possible. I would certainly appreciate it if you could set your bias aside and help clean up both articles. Ben 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

With what I do on turf I have an affinity for top quality. I don't really care who makes it just the results. The lawsuit information was not mine, but it is valid, and is a significant part of the "story". The bottom line is that facilities are voting with their feet (litterly) and there must be a reason the vast majority are picking one product and why so many are switching from the other as well. You can insist I am biased all you want, but I am not the one working for the PR firm who is bent on making that product look good and making Field Turf look bad. I think that speaks for itself. --Coz 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just stop with the marketing speak. This is an encyclopedic resource, not a place for your bias rhetoric. Make both articles accurate and neutral, remove the subjective claims and allow the public to make an informed decision. And please give me an example of how I have tried to make FieldTurf look bad? --Ben 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way Coz, you were the one who added the marketing spin to the Lawsuit content.Revision as of 18:56, December 22, 2005 --Ben 19:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just another note. I'm concerned about the over emphasis on the lawsuit and think that spending too much time listing damages, etc. can be an NPOV problem also. --Selket ^Talk 00:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I have posted an RfC to gain a neutral perspective on the POV content posted on the FieldTurf article. In the essence of transparency, I must mention that I am an employee of French West Vaughan (FWV) which handles PR and Marketing for GeneralSports Venue (GSV), the current licensee of the AstroTurf brand. Because of my affiliation with FWV and GSV, my views could be seen as biased although my intentions are purely neutral. Ben 16:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Product

I'd like to discuss making neutral edits to the Product section. The section currently reads:

FieldTurf is an artificial turf composed of sand and crumb rubber mixture with properties similar soil, and plastic shafts which are used to simulate the grass. As of 2005, at least seven out of the nine Canadian Football League teams will had installed either FieldTurf or a similar surface, as well as approximately half of National Football League venues as well as several Major League Baseball stadiums List of FieldTurf installations . The surface is now also becoming popular with high school football and is now even being seen in various world soccer venues, a sport where natural grass had always been preferred.[citation needed]

It would be a good idea to elaborate a little bit more on the elements and construction of the product without making any subjective claims and avoiding marketing speak.

The current section starts off pretty good, with the exception of a few subjective claims. Then the section starts to migrate from the original focus of the section. The following is how I would interpret the definition of the FieldTurf product.

FieldTurf is an artificial turf composed of monofilament polyethylene blend fibers tufted into a polypropylene backing with a mixture of silica sand and cryogenic rubber infill.

Here is a photo for reference to the FieldTurf product: http://www.fieldturf.com/superbowl/downloads/FTGrass_info.jpg

And just for neutrality, here is how a similar AstroTurf product description would read. (This was more difficult since there are several different AstroTurf products with a variety of features and information about the original product should also be included in the article.)

Current AstroTurf is composed of slit-film or monofilament polyethylene blend fibers, knitted or tufted into a polypropylene backing with an all rubber infill or a mixture of silica sand and cryogenic rubber infill or no infill at all.

And here is a description of the original AstroTurf:

The original AstroTurf, developed in 1964, was a monofilament polyethylene turf with a short pile tufted into a polypropylene backing.

Note: to maintain the neutrality of both the FieldTurf and AstroTurf articles the same adjectives should be used where appropriate to describe the product features. An example of this is "cryogenic rubber infill" versus just "rubber infill". There are significant differences between the two types and since both brands use cryogenic rubber both should be able to use the adjective. When and when not to use feature adjectives may spark debate, but let's discuss any problems as they arise. Ben 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I've added sources for Beckham's claim that MLS ought to use only natural surfaces, and I also added a source for another MLS player's negative comments. After adding the citations and extra information, the section was not displayed properly in the article. Can someone verify this and/or help fix it? Amavel 17:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disregard the previous comment. I forgot to conclude my citations with the </ ref> tag. All is well. Amavel 19:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the author of this Wikipedia article incorrectly states the temperature used in the study by Mattina et al. as 100 degrees Celsius. In fact the temperature to which the rubber was heated was 60 degrees Celsius which is equivalent to 140 degrees Fahrenheit. The study is accessible on the Internet.Mjfim (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed I've added the C-F conversion and also restored much of the "Criticism" section that was deleted on February 18 without explanation. As it is reliably-sourced content, the deletion of it requires an explanation. JGHowes ^talk - 14:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

AstroTurf Link

I recently removed a link to the AstroTurf article that was placed in the reference section of the FieldTurf article. In the recent past the inclusion of such a link has been the topic of debate and I'd like to start a sincere and neutral discussion on whether the link should be permitted or not. The floor is open. Ben 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. "Astro Turf" is a specific brand name of a completely different type of product. --Coz 02:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Though your suggestion that the FieldTurf and AstroTurf products are "completely different" is inaccurate your stance on the inclusion of an AstroTurf link has been noted. Ben 14:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are completely different, but a link to the generic version would be different as opposed to one specific brand. This is like putting a link to Yugo's on the Formula 1 race car page. --Coz 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Coz, please keep this conversation on subject. If you'd like to discuss the similarities between AstroTurf and FieldTurf then start a new thread and I'll be happy to correct any misperceptions you may have. Ben 22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that someone from the FieldTurf company doesn't want an astroturf link. These products are both artificial grass. And astroturf is the for runner for it - therefore anyone doing research on FieldTurf should be aware of the products origins - astroturf. Themepark

The origins of FieldTurf have nothing to do with Astroturf. If you are familiar with the product, you will see that they are not even similar. Don't believe me? Ask any professional athlete that has played on both surfaces - or search the internet to find out how many people think it is leaps and bounds different than Astroturf. Also, it is quite clear that people involved with FieldTurf's competition are trying to vandalize the FieldTurf page as it is the only well-known brand of artificial turf on wikipedia. On wikipedia, there is no room for this kind of smearing campaignJayjaysmo (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

health issues

does anyone want to add the questions some have about health concerns associated with the rubber? some people were worried it contained a lot of toxins. it was mentioned in the ny times a couple months ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.170.124.162 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm personally not aware of any health risks with rubber infill (also called Crumb_rubber) used in most artificial turfs. Rubber infill is generally ground up automotive tires. I assume if there were a health risk associated with rubber infill, the same health risk would be associated with tires and would be a lot more public. I'm also not a chemist so there could be some leaching of toxins that I'm not aware of. Since rubber infill is relatively new (20 years old) there are probably a lot more tests to be done before determing conclusively one way or the other. Hope this helps. Ben 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism About Crumb rubber

"In 2007, a Connecticut non-profit organization Environmental and Human Health Inc. (EHHI), released a report ... [etc., etc]" should probably be moved to the crumb rubber article, with a shorter mention here of the concerns raised. It's a general concern related to the rubber, not to FieldTurf specifically. 204.4.13.72 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Headlines

A source was from the manufacturer and quotes were taken out of context. Neutrality is disputed. FieldTurf looks like the best of all artificial surfaces from what I have read but those sources also say that grass is better. Top tier players have had concerns and that is OK to say in the article. Headlines isn't even appropriate anyways. The section is discussing praise and criticism so that is what it should be split into two sections or at least retitled and and include the proper content.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Many recently removed sources were press releases from the company. These are not inline with Wikipedia policy. For others. quotes were taken out of context to show the stadium in a better light while weasel words and phrases were added when the attention was negative.Cptnono (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC) If nobody minds, I would like to go through the article and delete the puffery to achieve a more neutral POV. I see that there has been a lot of discussion about this article in the past. Please do contact me if you have any questions. Katharine908 (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The list of "awards" is out. The out of context quotes (essentially: "so and so player who sucked said it was bad" are out. Most of the work done by what I assume are sales reps is out. Unsourced and unrelated safety and environmental benefits are out. Product guide is out.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that I work for FieldTurf, my opinion may be disregarded as a biased one. However, it seems blatant to me that the FieldTurf page is littered with one line quotes from soccer players who dislike the turf. Looking at the history of the page, it seems to me that tons of information about the company and product itself was deleted on the pretext of it being "positive spin" and "marketing material". Also, it doesn't look as though as though there were very many positive quotes about the turf to begin with whereas the page has always had its fix of negative ones. While every product has its pros and cons, those who support it and those who don't, the essence of this article should deal much more with facts about the company and product and much less about whether or not individual soccer players prefer natural grass or FieldTurf.Mike22022 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Another editor previously mentioned putting in some info from NFL, high school, and college players and teams. There has been some great press. Most of the info removed was unsourced public relations material form editors who I assume were outside sales reps or with the company. Some of the negative quotes were actually twisted to support the company. I am all for adding in all sides and neutral info. However, I think it is inappropriate to remove well sourced criticism.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So unsourced material is out. That makes sense from the verifiability end of things. On removing well sourced criticism: would you not agree with me, that David Beckham's comments which explain his dislike of the turf do not belong in the "safety" section of the page. While sources are happy to mention that he does not like the turf, Beckham is by no means contending that the surface is unsafe. The same thing goes for the part: "Martin O'Neill said FIFA officials should "have their heads examined" for allowing FieldTurf after Tomas Sorenson suffered a non-contact hamstring injury during a game in Toronto. " By putting this in the "safety" section, the editor is strongly implying that the surface is the cause of the injury. Hamstring pulls occur in almost every sport that involves running, and attributing the injury to the surface itself brings forth unjustified negative implications with regard to the safety of the product.Mike22022 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I like his statment in and think it is relevent to the section. However, it is given too much weight with so many lines. The lines should at the very least be tightened up. Alternativley, we could also make it perfectly clear through summarizing reliable secondary sources without the direct quote. Players have expressed concerns over injuries and claimed to have experienced more cramping/soreness in the later stages of games. Beckham's comments did recieve signifigant coverage and it is interesting so I think the snafu should go somewhere but the primary goal is to factually present info. Martin O'Neill's comments are interesting and the quote is sourced properly. Again we run into wieght concerns, though. I would be curious to see what other editors think about the quotes.

Also, you have a conflict of interst (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) but you are completely within this project's guidelines to mention any concerns here. I'm sure we can get anything straightened out.Cptnono (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that the "safety" section should consist of facts about the safety of FieldTurf. The source that claims that according to FIFA, non-contact injuries are higher on turf should by all means be listed under the safety section. The same should be true of the results of independent crumb rubber studies. As Wikipedia maintains, the information needs to be verifiable. Even though sources reveal that David Beckham and Martin O'Neill in fact said what they said, putting them under the issue of safety is a tactic employed to show FieldTurf in a bad light. The outburst of the understandably upset Martin O'Neill after his keeper pulls a hamstring should not inextricably link the surface and the injury, when there is nothing to suggest the connection between the two other than O'Neill's outburst itself. Do you understand the point I am trying to make? There is a subtle logical fallacy here which is being overlooked, regardless of my supposed conflict of interest. Do you agree?Mike22022 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't in there to show the product in a poor light. It is in there because it is sourced information regarding the product. We are not saying that it is FieldTurf, O'Neil is saying that it is FieldTurf. Like I said, it might be given too much weight so hopefully other editors will chime in. Also, months of promotional editing by people associated with your company caused this article to be choppy and poorly written. If you look at the history, one editor was so fed up that he tried to delete the article. We eventually just ripped out unverified info and put the information in context that was included for the sole purpose of skewing the article in a promotional tone. The most egregious concern was the attempt to twist the quotes around. I apologize if it looks like editors are only negatively editing the page but it looks to me as editors trying to achieve balance. It doesn't matter what our opinions are since this is supposed to a medium to present factually based information without bias. We should be able to achieve that but blatant POV pushing has historically caused other editors to react in a knee-jerk fashion.Cptnono (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is a mess now but at least it is not a series of press releases. Below are my thoughts on improvement:

General structure needs to be corrected *Things are repeated (Middlesbrough and construction). What deserves to go where?

• Grammar and proper prose were unfortunately removed in an effort to get rid of the fluff

Soccer *Section might need to be broken down into a paragraph for pros and a paragraph for cons instead of being what is essentially a back and forth list. *Growing FIFA acceptance (not World Cup finals but everything else) *The growing trend of use in the MLS (please do not removed sourced information again. It is better to reword it and find additional sources if it looks off but to completely removed it is bad form)

NFL players and coaches along with stadium owners have expressed many positives which deserves space (no divots, surface is softer than other turfs, yada yada yada)

Both environmental concerns and benefits with artificial surfaces with an obvious emphasis on this particular brand

Industry Leader

*Expanded use in US pro stadiums *Replaced market share lost by AstroTurf

Other uses

• MLB
• Originally made for golf (history section best?)
• Street medians in Windsor

*Paris Airport Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there should be discussion on the surface's use in (American) football and baseball. Soccer is basically the only sport for which it is controversial, so only mentioning its use in that sport may paint an overly negative picture of the product. 24.11.127.26 (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw one source mentioning criticism with high school football. Most of the information regarding sports other than soccer is positive, though. Also: Thanks for the recent cleanup.Cptnono (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Market share is in. Does anyone want to expand the uses as mentioned above?Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cryogenic rubber?

Is cryogenically ground rubber what is meant? Delmlsfan (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I really have no idea what it is but their website states "Cryogenic rubber" [1] and term is used in secondary sources. Is "cryogenically ground" the same thing and a more descriptive term we should be using?Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the term "cryogenically ground rubber" should be used, as it is probably what was intended. Its not that its any more descriptive, but its a clarification on the process, which demonstrates how fine of a grind they get.Radiomantodd (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This means that the rubber is frozen until it becomes fragile, so that when it is groud it snaps instead of being ripped. This produces a more granular less fuzzy rubber crumb. The rubber blends better with the sand, drains better, and doesn't fly around as much. You can also put more if it in the infill. I used to work for FieldTurf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.235.158 (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Company History

The section about Middlesbrough is misleading. They installed a training pitch. The wording here makes it sound to anyone not familiar with the Premiership that they play competitive matches on FieldTurf rather than just train on it. The article is still reading like a PR piece. Jonknight73 (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Macae

Macae misread the 2 sources provided. Henry has not played due to the turf. Further edit warring without using the talk page will result in a request for admin intervention. Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on FieldTurf. 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://archive.is/20121202233952/http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017343/index.htm to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017343/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217111633/http://www.fieldturf.com/product/designConstruction.cfm to http://www.fieldturf.com/product/designConstruction.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824092758/http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=130784 to http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=130784
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522072133/http://www.sd129.org/database/district/downloads/district/College%20Safety%20Study-b.pdf to http://www.sd129.org/database/district/downloads/district/College%20Safety%20Study-b.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420040340/http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/pitchequipment/footballturf/star%3D1/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/pitchequipment/footballturf/star%3D1/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.lusheslawn.co.za
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729110223/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/08/beckham_speaks.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/08/beckham_speaks.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)