Talk:Artificial turf/Archive 1

Copyright infringement

The bit about FIFA reads like it was ripped off a website somewhere, and is not at all encyclopedic - 3mta3 00:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it was Snowmanmelting 03:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I just took out the four or so paragraphs of info that was purely from the above site. Sorry I left this article kind of empty, I'm not very familiar with the topic so I can't offer to write much for it. Snowmanmelting 04:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I took out the bit about the car tyres scare; I don't think this is true.

Guinnog

I am working on a picture for this

Guinnog

Added image and explanation from New Scientist article (referenced).

Guinnog 19:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted an image from about 3 years ago when i was coaching girl's lacrosse for the local high school.

WalterWalrus3

Couple of thoughts.. No mention of turftoe which is a sporting injury associated with artificial grass See this link

Turf toe

Also wondered about the list of commercial external links...suspect that this will grow over time and is it not better just to allow the suppliers to either create a page on their own company..very much like field turf have done?

MHolly 06:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have followed up the above suggestion and removed commercial links. There should be plenty of good, authority links on this subject...and i have added one where the English FA offers guidance on chosing an artifical grass pitch.

In the interest of a NPOV i have added a small section on advantages and disadvantages.I know that these points of view could be debateable and that the type of artificial grass used will also be relevant. I have created a link to a new page where i hope to embellish these points and to provide good supporting evidence for both points of view.

Indian Sunset 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good addition. I question the need for a separate article though. Why not just add to this article? Guinnog 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Guinnog, thank you for the amendments to the grammar and style...it reads better now.

I would be happy to expand within this article. Let's give it a go and see how it works out. I have quite a few external links to articles on some of the issues raised. Indian Sunset 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Industry links

I have tried to keep this article relatively clear of external link spam. What we see now are artificial grass companies writing their own wiki pages and then linking from this page. I think the problem here is that by doing this are we not almost ranking these companies and ignoring all the other players in the industry? How has this problem been addressed elsewhere? Collieman 07:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted the "see also" section, which did nothing but link to vanity articles. Hopefully that'll help. Lovelac7 10:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Images on Wiki Commons

I have added some images onto Wikiemdia Commons

• The pictures come courtesy of [Supportinsport.com]. Hopefully we will be able to expand the collection and coverage in the future

Collieman 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Misleading FIFA information

"According to FIFA, the installation at the Borussia-Park in Mönchengladbach is another major step in the quality and development of artificial turf surfaces."

This is some kind of misleading, because the "artificial turf pitch has been installed at the Borussia Park" was not in the actual stadium ("Stadium at Borussia-Park"). It was installed at a training pitch by the stadium. The whole area with several training pitches is called "Borussia-Park". So the FIFA information is not generally wrong, but is could lead to misinterpretations.194.138.18.131 12:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Television

This article doesn't mention anything about the use of artificial grass in television show sets. Seems like it should.

NPOV

Since there's a NPOV conflict between AstroTurf and FieldTurf I wanted to point out a few parts of this article that I find subjective, unverifiable, and possibly against WP's NPOV policy. Note, that I am not making these edits myself as I have a COI with the subject matter.

Almost as soon as it [AstroTurf] made its debut in the Houston Astrodome, "plastic grass" acquired a bad reputation. The Astrodome only installed it as a last resort - the stadium's revolutionary roof made it almost impossible to maintain a grass field. And even though other American football and baseball stadiums followed the Astrodome's lead, artificial turf was never a hit with players or spectators

First, calling AstroTurf "plastic grass", though semantically correct, has a negative connotation and the statement would still make since without it. This is not to say the entire statement itself isn't a generalization and has no credible reference. I'd also like a credible reference that states the installation of AstroTurf at the Astrodome was a last resort. And again another negative generalization, "artificial turf was never a hit with players or spectators", is used to close the paragraph.

AstroTurf in particular is a far harder surface than grass, and soon became known an unforgiving playing surface which was prone to cause more injuries (and, in particular, more serious joint injuries) than would comparatively be suffered on a grass surface. The AstroTurf surfaces were also aesthetically unappealling to many fans.

More negative, unverifiable, generalizations. If this statement is to stay, the negatives and disadvantages should reflect artificial turf as a whole, not just AstroTurf.

I think that should do it for now. Thanks. Ben 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Watch any broadcast of a turf-based baseball game on television, and you'll hear these kinds of comments about more injuries and lower aesthetic appeal of artificial turf. In Veterans Stadiom in Philadelphia, you could clearly see seams where sections of turf were placed. I think the comments are good the way they stand as it's essentially become general knowledge. It may seem like unwarranted negative generaliztion, but AstroTurf playing surfaces have been controversial and unpopular for quite some time. Paul150 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Paul

Artificial Turf vs. Artificial Grass vs. Next (New) Generation

In the world of synthetic playing fields, the word "turf" has acquired a negative image and companies have spent thousands of dollars trying to differentiate themselves from the four-lettered word. And though there's no official documentation on who or when the phrases "Artificial Grass" or "Next Generation" were coined, they are often found used in marketing materials from turf companies beginning in the late 1990s. FieldTurf claims to have invented and developed the first concepts of "New Generation" artificial turf.

Many of the companies who use these terminologies to describe their products as "Artificial Grass" will often inversely describe their competitors products as "Artificial Turf" in an attempt to gain a psychological advantage. The truth is that though there are significant differences between the original artificial turf product from the 1960s and the artificial turf of today, there are very few differences between the high-end artificial turfs currently available, and they can all be accurately defined as artificial turf.

Without a clear definition as to what constitutes the difference between "Artificial Turf", "Artificial Grass", and "Next Generation" any declaration that any synthetic turf product is anything other than "artificial turf" can cause confusion or a perceived difference in quality.

The current Artificial Turf article defines "Next generation" or "Artificial Grass" as: "surfaces [that] are often virtually indistinguishable from grass when viewed from any distance, and are generally regarded as being about as safe to play on as a typical grass surface..."

Since SFC and myself have come to the conclusion that any description of a synthetic turf product as resembling natural grass in any capacity should be considered subjective and not allowed per WP policy. By the current definition the same subjectivity can thus be concluded by describing a product as "Artificial Grass" or "Next Generation" and should also not be allowed.

My recommendations to prevent any confusion and POV conflicts (accidental or otherwise) are 3 fold.

• First, I recommend replacing any mention of "Artificial Grass" or "Next (New) Generation" on product or brand specific pages with the less confusing term "Artificial Turf". If this edit alters a statement to become inaccurate then the statement should be moved to the respective talk pages for discussion.
• Secondly, since "Artificial Grass" and "Next Generation" are currently used in the synthetic turf industry, there should be a clear and concise description of the terminology on the neutral Artificial Turf article. This description should attempt to explain their origin and the the reason for their creation (as explained earlier).
• And finally, there should be a constructive and open discussion started on the Artificial Turf Talk page to find an acceptable and clear definition of the controversial terminology.

Thoughts?—Ben 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wholly oppose. That is called rebranding - and that is not what encyclopaedias do. Popular usage is artificial turf - no matter what the brochures say. SFC9394 21:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose? I'm confused. I'm for using only the term "artificial turf" as well. Your reason is exactly what I wrote. Perhaps you misunderstood. Ben 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. It is a pro-NPOV change to replace the terms "artificial grass", "next generation", and "new generation" with "artificial turf", at least until the distinctions can be clarified. However, brand names should not be changed or removed, but it should be clarified that they are just brand names. Cmadler 22:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Big Brother stuff

I removed this section because it is of no interest !!!! It worths merely a note in the introduction where it is mentioned that its use has been extended from sport areas to residential area too. The anonymous author who wrote this could add something like "...and on reality TV sets where natural grass may suffer from...", if he really thing it worths beeing mentioned. No more place in regard to the rest of the article ! Lvr 21:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)