Talk:Lincoln Financial Field
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Lincoln Financial Field is part of the WikiProject Philadelphia, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Soccer
- How many soccer games have been held at this stadium? Nyrmetros 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MISC.
The date of the first event at the stadium is wrong. The first Springsteen concert was 8/8/03. Not sure when the first event (the soccer match) was, but it was earlier than that. (Comment added 1/19/06)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User:Joy has repeatedly removed my citation of http://www.nypost.com/sports/29271.htm for the fact that the stadium has four jail cells, in violation of Wikipedia:Cite sources. anthony (see warning) 19:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This is really silly. It's not an issue of basic intellectual honesty that we keep a link to a long article that makes a cursory mention of this trivial little factoid and which isn't even a primary source. --Joy [shallot] 20:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- It's not an issue of honesty, it's an issue of convenience. If I read a strange fact, like that there's a jail inside a football field, I'm going to question it, and if there's a link to a respected source which confirms it, it's going to save me the time of looking up that source myself. I wouldn't even think to go through the history and try to figure out when this fact was inserted, just in case that person added a link to a source which was later removed. anthony (see warning) 20:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- The article linked to doesn't quite provide much in the way of confirmation. It says nothing more than what is already said in our article, and only provides corroboration from a respected source. Is the latter worth the advertizing? I don't think it is. --Joy [shallot] 22:06, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "It says nothing more than what is already said in our article, and only provides corroboration from a respected source." That's exactly the point of the link. "Is the latter worth the advertizing? I don't think it is." I suspect such an opinion is strongly in the minority. anthony (see warning) 22:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
-
