Talk:Skycam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge

Sky Cam should be merged into Skycam, the more comprehensive article for the same technological subject. --Mrmiscellanious 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

It's almost silly to have an article stub on a subject where you have a full article under a different name --Chocolate Jesus 06:01 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hence the merge tag. It's just that no one has been bold and actually merged the two articles. Qutezuce 07:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents

An anonymous IP editor has twice deleted the section on the game where the camera's wires came loose and almost hit two players. I've reinstated it both times since there was never any discussion of the properly-referenced info. Any thoughts on the matter? Snowfire51 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is something that should be discussed on the talk page, and not just continually reverted. We currently have two sources for the Skycam incident in the Seahawks game. The game report from ESPN, says "The game was delayed for about 10 minutes early in the first quarter when the NBC overhead camera crashed to the turf during a timeout. It nearly clocked Hasselbeck and receiver Bobby Engram as they were walking toward the sideline." The USA Today article appears to only contain quotes from Cablecam, which said "It was a controlled descent due to human error on the part of the operator," and "There was never any failure. It was a misstep in protocol." With those two sources, a neutral source and a statement from the company, I think both sources should be used, at least. Is there another source we can find that definitively says what happened? Snowfire51 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(Ajax008 left this comment on my talk page, I'm moving it here for discussion.)

The comment about the camera "cutting loose" is not accurate and is not supported by the article that was initially referenced. It also did not nearly hit two players - this is journalistic sensationalism - the camera was just moved after the incident to hang over the sideline (near the players).

Per the second article (which actually contained the facts that were ascertained after the incident), the operator did not hear the technicians tell him that the motor was off while making an adjustment during a timeout (this procedure was done with technicians manning the ropes who ended up having to lower the camera which is why it was a controlled descent; there was also a technician near the camera on the field when the adjustment was being made). It's that simple. Nothing broke. Just trying to correct the inaccurate information that was posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajax008 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my talk page, the ESPN article clearly uses the words "cut loose". You can't discount it as "journalistic sensationalism," that's a valid source. The article you added does not contain the information you left on my talk page, such as how the technicians had to lower the camera, and there was a technician near the camera. You seem to have inside information on this incident, but it's not supported by the reference you've provided. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree there should be information on the incident, but "cut loose" is a terrible phrase - vague and unencyclopedic - and although ESPN used it, it doesn't mean this article should. If it is used here, it should be used as a direct quote, inside marks. Also, given there was no injury resulting from the action, this really is a minor incident and we should avoid a lengthy section over-emphasizing it (undue weight). AUTiger » talk 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree on it being a minor incident, and the only one of its kind, as far as we know. It did, however, delay an NFL game for ten minutes and nearly injure two players (as per the ESPN source). Should it be condensed, and rolled into another section? Snowfire51 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)