File talk:All-High Stadium - The Natural.JPG
I LOOKED ALL OVER THE INTERNET TO TRY TO FIND A BETTER IMAGE. I CANNOT FIND ONE, AND I DO NOT INTEND TO DRIVE 1,000 MILES TO TAKE A PICTURE OF IT. THE CLAIM THAT IT SHOULD BE "EASILY REPLACEABLE" IS PATENTLY FALSE. Wahkeenah 02:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Replaceable is defined by Wikipedia as possible recreated. Since the stadium still exists, this is possible since the image is used solely to depict the stadium. It doesn't matter if a free image is currently available, whether you could find one on the internet or that you are 1000 miles from the subject: The possibility exists that a free image could be created, making this in violation of the Wikipedia fair use policy. --MECU≈talk 02:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The image illustrates how it was used in the making of the film, which is not reproduceable elsewhere. I concur that the way the stadium looks now is reproduceable. But not the way it looked in the film... as discussed in the article. Wahkeenah 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite. There is nothing in the article that suggest that the image was doctored for the movie. A current, free image could show the same things that this image shows and the fact that it's not similar to Wrigley field. Even the "refurbishment" that occurred in 2006 likely didn't change the stadiums base appearance substantially. --MECU≈talk 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Try actually reading the article, and you might see this: "In fact, All-High Stadium has only a single level of stands with a roof. The upper deck in the film appears to have been inserted in post-production, and the scoreboard also matted in over an existing tall smokestack on a building that stands at the north corner of the stadium, presumably part of Bennett High's heating plant." Wahkeenah 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it might be useful then in The Natural then, but I don't think it's useful here because the picture doesn't illustrate much except what it looked like in the movie. The subject of this article isn't how the stadium looked in the movie. I think the text is sufficient as it perfectly describes what the changes were. A free image that showed a single level and the smokestack would be fine since one could compare it to an image of Wrigley field to see the difference between the two. It doesn't take a fair use image to illustrate that. --MECU≈talk 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the image caption "All-High Stadium as seen in The Natural" isn't correct, since it's been digitally altered to not represent the stadium. --MECU≈talk 01:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the title to be more descriptive. I could include the Google maps overhead of the stadium the way it really looks, but Google maps are copyrighted. Wahkeenah 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You might be able to get a satellite view using the USGS viewer. I wrote a guide on how to use it at User:Mecu/USGSSeamlessViewer. --MECU≈talk 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I tried it and it locked up my computer. Wahkeenah 04:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- You might be able to get a satellite view using the USGS viewer. I wrote a guide on how to use it at User:Mecu/USGSSeamlessViewer. --MECU≈talk 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the title to be more descriptive. I could include the Google maps overhead of the stadium the way it really looks, but Google maps are copyrighted. Wahkeenah 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Try actually reading the article, and you might see this: "In fact, All-High Stadium has only a single level of stands with a roof. The upper deck in the film appears to have been inserted in post-production, and the scoreboard also matted in over an existing tall smokestack on a building that stands at the north corner of the stadium, presumably part of Bennett High's heating plant." Wahkeenah 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite. There is nothing in the article that suggest that the image was doctored for the movie. A current, free image could show the same things that this image shows and the fact that it's not similar to Wrigley field. Even the "refurbishment" that occurred in 2006 likely didn't change the stadiums base appearance substantially. --MECU≈talk 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The image illustrates how it was used in the making of the film, which is not reproduceable elsewhere. I concur that the way the stadium looks now is reproduceable. But not the way it looked in the film... as discussed in the article. Wahkeenah 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)