Talk:Fenway Park

Fenway's 95th Birthday

This season is Fenway's 95th birthday; are the Red Sox doing anything special this season to celebrate it (like a special commerative logo) or are they saving all that hoopla for its centennial in 2012?

"Pesky’s Pole"

I do not know why the last sentence that keeps getting deleted by various people is put back (bold is the disputed phrasing):

In similar fashion, Mark Bellhorn hit what proved to be the game-winning homer in Game 1 of the 2004 World Series off that pole's (miked) screen, and TV announcer Tim McCarver said the resulting twang was "the worst sound I ever heard."

First, the pole was miked for the TV audience, it is not piped into the stadium to my knowlege and typically is not miked during the season. Second, the sound was extraordinary only at the time people were watching the game, I highly doubt that you could find many people who even remember the sound especially of Red Sox fans. Thirdly, I did hear the sound and I don't think that the sound was very special. Fourth, just because some TV announcer said that its the worst sound he's heard (which I highly doubt) does not hold water for being an important feature/event of Fenway Park. Assawyer 09:44, October 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Whether that fact is interesting or not is merely a matter of your opinion, which overrides all others. Wahkeenah 14:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• You are correct, but I do not think the information about the sound of the pole is interesting. I also do not think others, except you, think it is a notable fact. Merely using the words of Tim McCarver to give your opinion more "credibility" does not make it an interesting fact. Assawyer 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• My quoting McCarver was only intended as illustration, not to push a viewpoint, in fact I was rooting for the Red Sox and thought the sound was awesome. Meanwhile, although "Pesky's Pole" is a part of Fenway lore, I challenge you to show me the poll (!) numbers on how many think "Fisk's Pole" is "interesting" (aside from Mrs. Fisk, that is). Wahkeenah 15:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• "Fisk's Pole" is interesting fact for two reasons:

1. Fenway Park named it after Carlton Fisk, a hall of famer, thus it is a specific feature of the park which is used to describe the left field foul pole.

1. In the paragraph about the pole it states that in the 12th inning of Game 6 of the 1975 World Series against the Reds, Fisk hit a pitch down the left field line. "Fisk ... famously jumped and waved his arms as if to somehow will the ball fair. It ricocheted off the foul pole, winning the game for the Red Sox and sending the series to a seventh..."

Thus, the pole is named in memory of an important Red Sox who was involved in a memorable TV and photographic moment when the game was tied and the Red Sox needed to win the game to send it to Game 7. I hope that clears things up for you. Assawyer 18:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I remember it well. I think it was Dick Stockton who made the call on TV: "If it stays fair it's gone! ... Home run!" It would be considerably more memorable if it had been Game 7. My favorite moment from Game 7 (which was a bummer otherwise) was when Curt Gowdy made the statement about the Red Sox that "Their future is ahead of them!" Meanwhile, if you don't think the shock of Bellhorn's homer and the screeching sound of the foul-pole screen make a good metaphor for what was happening to LaRussa's team (and not for the first time), then maybe you should take up Chartered Accountancy, where no right-brained thinking is required. Wahkeenah 18:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The sound of Mark B hitting that pole was colossal, but nothing has ever been made of it in Boston. I tried to get the phrase "ringing the Bellhorn" going, but in fact nobody remembers that sound. Ortolan88 (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Pudge's Pole vs. Fisk's Pole

Does anyone know which one it actually is, if either? Also, I have to wonder about how Pesky and Fisk feel about the public constantly talking about their "poles". Seems kind of crude, if you ask me. d:) Wahkeenah 14:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I put a ref to the Boston Globe article that says it's Fisk Pole. The Globe is a pretty common standard for New England sports info. The Google test isn't very helpful; 276 for "Fisk pole", 444 for "Fisk's pole", 278 for "Pudge pole", and 198 for "Pudge's pole". They're all too close to really be decisive, and most of those hits are informal blogs and bulletin boards. The wikipedia article on Carlton Fisk calls it the Fisk Pole, and I'll go along with the Boston Globe unless someone has an official source from the Sox that says otherwise. Kafziel 15:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know if fans actually call it that, or if it's just a P.R. invention. Wahkeenah 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there are two camps: The "isn't that nice" group, and the "that's retarded and there's no way I'm calling it that" group. It will take some time for it to fully catch on, but I'm sure it took time with Pesky's pole, too. Kafziel 15:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that raises the next question - does anybody beside the press call it the "Pesky pole"? The average fan would be about the age of Pesky's grandchildren. For that matter, I'm sure a lot of them don't recall Game 6 in 1975 either, although they would have seen it on video many times. Wahkeenah 16:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on what the locals say (I'm a New Yorker) but I've always heard it referred to as such. It's certainly more notable than "Williamsburg", "the Belly", or "Duffy's cliff". I think the name transcends age, though; Sox fans, like Yankee fans, have a long memory. Kafziel 17:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I daresay all of them are press inventions. I'm not trying to say they aren't legitimate, just that the fans don't likely talk about them that much, it's just part of the "lore". Babe Ruth's pals all called him "George" or some variation, but he was still "Babe" to the public. I imagine Red Sox writers have some term for the Great Comeback of 2004, also, and I'm sure you Yankees fans have a different name for it. In any case, the last time the Red Sox had beaten the Yankees when it really counted was 1904, so it's clear that the Red Sox get the best of the Yankees at least once per century. Thus, fans of the Yankees have a long memory in a good way (26 championships or whatever it is), whereas the memories of Red Sox fans (and also Cubs fans, like me) are long in a way similar to that of citizens of the Confederacy... would like to forget, but just can't! Wahkeenah 17:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The official name is the "Fisk Foul Pole" as officially recognized by the Boston Red Sox. [1] I will change the official name in the article and those can add any informal names along with the official name if it is warranted. --Assawyer 21:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! Now, what's the official name, if any for the "Pesky Pole"? Wahkeenah 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

View from the top

User:Sean 86 just posted a picture showing the view from the top of the Green Monster. It's interesting in its own way, but I think the huge white tarp over the infield is a little bit jarring. I have a very similar picture, here, that is considerably less sharp but shows a bit more of the stadium and shows the infield. At that size I think the sharp focus is negligible, but I didn't think it would be right to replace his pic with my pic on my own, so I thought I would leave it to the community to decide. Kafziel 01:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC) By the way, I do think Sean86's picture and a section about dealing with rain would be a good addition to the baseball article.

No mention of the distance from Home Plate to the Pitcher's Mound?

I thought this distance was different for Fenway. User:192.156.110.34 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• 60 feet 6 inches, like every other baseball field. It better be, anyway. Although I'm sure many Red Sox pitchers have wished it were shorter. Wahkeenah 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is 60' 6" according to the MLB Rule Book:

1.07 The pitcher’s plate shall be a rectangular slab of whitened rubber, 24 inches by 6 inches. It shall be set in the ground as shown in Diagrams 1 and 2, so that the distance between the pitcher’s plate and home base (the rear point of home plate) shall be 60 feet, 6 inches.

--Assawyer 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Right Field Roof Seats

As a Fenway Frequenter, I know no one calls them the "Budweiser" Seats. They are called "Right Field Roof" on the tickets, on the website and by the fans.

Joseph A. Boucher

I've always heard that Boucher, a construction engineer from Albany, switched allegiance from the Yankees to the Red Sox after Williams hit him in the head? Can this be verified?

That is part of a story that is told to people while on the fenway park tour when they explain the lone red seat in the bleachers so i am not sure how much of the story is true if at all

As a former tour guide at Fenway, I have to agree with the previous statement. The Boucher story would vary slightly from tour guide to tour guide, but would always end with the same punchline: the next day, the Boston Globe ran the headline, "BULL'S EYE! WILLIAMS KNOCKS SENSE INTO YANKEES FAN!" It always got a laugh, but I've never gone to the library to verify this headline, and don't really want to. It's a fun joke, but I'm not willing to give it more credence than that. I knew I was straddling a line between fact and fiction, but I justified that by understanding I was a tour guide, not a journalist. Jfarr11 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cameras in Fenway

Hi... does anyone know if they allow you to bring a camera into Fenway? I've got an 8mpx camera, and I'll be going there soon, and, if I can, will take pictures and upload them here. But I don't want to waste time having to bring it back to the hotel and then miss the 1st inning... aido2002 10:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, every Major League park permits cameras, as long as you're not recording and/or re-broadcasting the game. If you're just taking souvenir-type shots for yourself, you're fine. Don't bring tripods or bulky stuff, but I don't think you'll have a problem. I was just there last weekend, and they didn't say anything about mine. Also, if you get there early, you'll have a better shot at getting access to the lower levels near the field. Close to game time, and during, the ushers get pretty strict about needing a ticket to be down in those sections. Have fun. -- dakern74 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have to get there at least two hours early, to pick up my tickets, so I'll be be able to get plenty of great shots. aido2002 00:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

New Photos

As I said I would in the previous post, I went to Fenway and got losts of great photos... the best of which I uploaded to Flickr, www.flickr.com/photos/aido2002, with a CC Artibution-Share Alike liscense. Feel free to look at hem, upload those I haven't, but be sure to atribute me. :) aido2002 06:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nickname Reference

I just added a reference to support the nickname of "America's Most Beloved Ballpark", since a {{fact}} tag was added to it recently. I'm not sure the reference is really necessary, since a bit of Google searching turns up little to no references to the phrase that don't refer to Fenway Park. If anyone can find anything a bit more official than the one I listed, feel free - the phrase is used multiple times on the Red Sox official site, but it's not really an official statement of "this is the nickname of the park" anywhere. Seems good enough to me, though. —Krellis 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed I didn't believe that needed to be sourced at all because it is a slogan, not a claim. In any event, good job. -- No Guru 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's strictly advertising hype. I could make a good case for both Wrigley Field and Yankee Stadium. Wahkeenah 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a claim, and fans of nearly every other team would disagree. Moreso, a link to the Red Sox's website that uses it as marketing speak does not satisfy a citation. Wrigley Field is "The Friendly Confines" not "The Most Friendly Confines." Surely there is another nickname that Red Sox fans use to refer to Fenway Park that is not a marketing slogan? — Linnwood 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Friendly Confines" is a phrase coined by Ernie Banks, which has grown into a marketing hype of its own (following up on "Beautiful Wrigley Field", which was an "official" team slogan used for ads in the 40s, 50s and 60s), yet I have seldom heard actual Cubs fans call it that, so maybe it's about as equally "valid" as the Red Sox's claim. It's about as valid as calling the Braves "America's Team", when in reality, the Yankees probably have more fans than any other ball club. Meanwhile, I expect what most Boston fans call Fenway is "the ballpahk". Wahkeenah 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New York Times

The template about the New York Times company and its corporate information at the bottom is a little weird. (There is no reference in the text of the article that the Times Co. owns part of the park or the Red Sox.) Even weirder is that another asset of the the Times Company listed is "Metro Boston" (linking to a geography article about greater Boston and its suburbs.) I speculate that it actually means the Boston edition of the "Metro" newspaper. Or perhaps it is all vandalism.18.56.0.43 06:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism. The New York Times owns 17 percent of the holding company that owns the Red Sox and Fenway Park [2]. Dave6 ^talk 06:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Tag removed

Hello, I have removed the trivia tag from the "Fenway Park in Films" section. This section is not trivia; it is merely a list of the movies and television shows the park has featured in. In truth, there really is no way to mix in these facts throughout the article as the tag asks. ToddC4176 17:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fenway90Annlogo.gif

Image:Fenway90Annlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Seating Capacity

In the Seating Capacity Section, the following appears: "There have been proposals to increase the seating capacity to as much as 45,000 through the expansion of the upper decks, while others (notably former team owners, the JRY Trust) have called for razing the historic ballpark entirely and building a similar, but larger and more modern, scalable facility nearby. Any such action would likely be met by strong local opposition and may be deemed illegal." Can someone give me some indication of why this would be illegal? I can't see how this is in here without an explanation or reference. --ZoQuo 20:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a long since past issue, but Fenway Park is on the National Register of Historic places, and as such requires appropriate approval before alterations can be made. 71.232.203.186 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are always ways around that sort of thing, for example by threatening to simply abandon Fenway and go play elsewhere. A more important question might be to ask why there is a history of seating capacity changes (recent history, anyway) in the infobox. The infobox really should only contain current figures, shouldn't it? There's about enough info there to spin off a separate article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

George Will

I did not want to make any further changes or additions to the present Fenway Park page without first attempting to discuss it with you.

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia.

Please leave a message here or perhaps we can discuss it via email.

Thanks, Relax777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the George Will comment (which User:Sasha Callahan had deleted), you need to provide a link to an internet article and/or a book title and which page he said it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response to my inquiry. In the short section that I originally added entitled "What the Experts Say", I included the reference to the source, which is Will's book Men at Work, p. 175. I included it in parentheses; I have not yet figured out how to put in footnotes. Again, I will not change anything on the page until I get it okayed with someone. Also, I open to it being edited. Please let me know about this. Thanks, Relax777.

I had overlooked that, and the deleter had either overlooked it or ignored it. I put it back with the citation up front (an expert can reformat the citation if he wants to). Someone then slapped "fact" tags on it, which is absurd as the quote is straight from the book, which I have a copy of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

B-Ball Bugs- Thank you for your response and assistance. The Fenway Park page is very informative. From Relax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bugs, tone down the attitude a bit, OK? I've {{vs}} tags to the George Will section that is after the direct quotes, as I'm unclear on whether these are actually in the book. I'm working on citignt the section properly, but it would be helpful if Bugs would stop removing the ref tags from the hyperlinks. You had asked me earler if everything in Wikipedia had to be sourced, and the answer, just about! Just because an article does not have alot of sources doesn't mean that it does not need them. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it takes time improve them, as there are not deadlines to meet, amog other things. Any claim tht is not common knowledge needs to be sourced, per WP:ATTR and WP:V. In the last sentence, it states, "Some experts feel that these unique aspects of Fenway give the Red Sox an advantage over their opponents". If this is from the George WIll book, then fine, though it needs to be clarified this is his opinion. If it's not from his book, then we need to know which experts said this, and where they said it. This is Wikipedia POLICY, not a guideline, and ignoring this can be grounds for administrative action. So please, go easy on those of us trying to follow policy, and we'll try to go easy on the newbies. - BillCJ 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Will does not, in fact, make the argument that Fenway is an advantage to the Red Sox, but rather the opposite. Will also provides support for the view that Wrigley Field is one of the culprits behind the Cubs' failure to win. Thank you, George! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edits, BaseballBugs, you need to again tone down the attitude. Adding a fact or vs tag to an entry isn't a condemnation of the material or a punishment of any type, it's simply a note that something needs to be done. In this case, the fact tag, as I'm sure you've noticed, simply says "citation needed" and links to WP:CITE, which provides ways on how to cite text. I do not see how this is inappropriate to the situation. The version you're reverting to uses "see page X" of the book, in-text, which is NOT a citation. Check out WP:Citation templates on how to use a template to cite a book in a footnote on the article. This is the proper way of citing a source, and you're essentially denying this. Take my word for it. I'm sitting at 3 reverts right now, as are you. Pats1 ^T/C 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You tone down your attitude, and I'll tone down mine. If you want, I will give you not just the page (which is already there), but the line numbers on the pages. "Citation needed" is not used when the citation is not formatted the way you want it, it's used when there is no citation at all. If you don't like the way it's formatted, you are free to fix it. But to say "citation needed" is a falsehood. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Parenthetical references (what you did with your latest edit) are discouraged under Wikipedian guidelines. Instead, just throw the cite book template at WP:Citation templates at the end of what you're sourcing, enclosed in <ref></ref>. Pats1 ^T/C 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you know how to format a citation, feel free to do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book, the publishing info, etc. If you can provide me it, I'll do so. Pats1 ^T/C 18:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Men at Work, MacMillan, 1990, as the article says. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fenway Park Nicknames

In the Info Box it says on top "The Fens". This a nickname for the area surrounding the Muddy River and the wetlands that have been filled in. I have never heard Fenway described as "The Fens". The other line "America's Most Beloved Ballpark" is just recent cheesy marketing but I guess the sign is too big to go unnoticed.MBCF 12:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I challenge that marketing hype also. Wrigley Field just as easily qualifies. However, we have our own slogan, "Beautiful Wrigley Field"... a good contrast to "Ugly Old Fenway". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No Mention of the Shell Sign?

Ok, it's not actually *in* the stadium... but neither were those Ted Williams homers.  :-) --Baylink 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're probably talking about the Citgo sign, which is not mentioned, but it is visible in this photo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Left field at Fenway

Number of World Series played at Fenway

Congrats Sox on the 2007 championship. Can someone provide a definitive ruling on the number of times Fenway has hosted the WS? I count nine (8 featuring the Sox and 1 featuring the Braves). From what I've been able to find, the 2 other Sox WS appearances (1915, 1916) were played at Braves Field, due to seating capacity issues.

Still, the number keeps getting changed in the entry from nine to 10. Thanks. Mscroggins 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's 8 for Red Sox, 1 for the Braves, total 9. World Series in Boston:

Red Sox - Huntington Avenue Grounds 1903 - Fenway Park 1912,18,46,67,75,86,2004,07 - Braves Field 1915,16

Braves - Fenway Park 1914 - Braves Field 1948

Honorable mention for South End Grounds - 1892, split-season championship; 1897, Temple Cup

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

An IP address slipped a 10 in there on 2/27/08. [3] Thanks to another IP address today for fixing it. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ownership error

Please know that Fenway Park and the Boston Red Sox are owned by New England Sports Ventures (NESV). NESV owns the ballpark and the team as well as Fenway Sports Group (FSG) and 80% of New England Sports Network (NESN). Ownership was incorrectly listed as FSG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.13.139.155 (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Smallest ballpark?

The cited source makes no such claim, and your comparing measurements is not only "analysis", which is against wikipedia rules, but is also questionable analysis on its face, as the real analysis would be the total square footage of the playing field, which is not discussed in the citation at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, your vandalizing of my user page does not help your case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reported your behaviour on the WP:ANI page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Overhead shot or diagram of Fenway needed

I just added a bit about the odd shape of thw whole outfield in Fenway, but an overhead shot or diagram would show the distortions much better than words. It really looks like someone chopped off most of left field and plopped it down between center and right field. Ortolan88 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) PS -- It would be perfectly ridiculous to make a new park with those horrid dimensions, no matter how used we've gotten to it. O88

Some busybody just removed my description of the distorted Fenway outfield as "original research". Give me a break. Anyone who knows anything can easily see that the Fenway outfield is screwed, that the left field is half gone while right field and right center are vast. I don't engage in disputes in Wikipedia any more -- personally unpleasant to me -- but this deletion is simply wrong. Ortolan88 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Your edits were personal, unsourced commentary that constituted original research. Pats1 ^T/C 18:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There's already a diagram in the article that illustrates the irregular nature of the block. You tried to post some spam websites which probably did not help your case any. It's sufficient to point out that the block is asymmetrical, which summarizes the visual evidence in the diagram. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Green Monster

Certainly there should be some discussion about the left field wall, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.218.232 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The wall is discussed in a separate article, Green Monster. I added a subheading and link to the main Green Monster article to avoid confusion in the future. Sswonk (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a section to the Green Monster page on the scoreboard, as I was looking for information on that and it is not mentioned in the wikipedia page. Also added a link to it on the Fenway page. I think the link and scoreboard sentences still need some clean up but I did not want to change the original too much.Clapre (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality check

I tagged the article for a neutrality check as there seemed to be some editorialisation in various places as terms like "good" and "fair" (and not only in terms like "fair ball") were being used. An objective article doesn't need judgment terms unless it can be documented that the team, or similar official body, has/had judged it so. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag placed by 147.70.242.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The article is not biased and the statement by the user concerning the words "good" and "fair" are false. The word fair is used once, to describe the waving by Carlton Fisk in the 1975 WS Game Six walkoff homer. The word good is used three times, once in a quote by George Will, once citing the film Good Will Hunting and once in the title of a book cited in the references. Sswonk (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP put it back without answering the above questions, and I took it away again. Until the IP gives specific reasons, and not the bogus complaints you cited, I'm treating any such tagging as vandalism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

PTI 11/7--Increased seating?

On Pardon the Interruption on Friday, November 7, Bob Ryan indicated that the Red Sox were going to expand the capacity by 560 seats. Anyone have more info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.241.89 (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

image

Here is a great photo of the park in its first year or so. Since it was taken before 1923 it can be used here. If you like, go for it :) Kingturtle (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-sporting events section is a problem

The section called "non-sporting events" needs to be reviewed and rewritten, otherwise it simply becomes a list of every artist the team decides to invite each summer. The re-introduction of concerts in 2003 with Springsteen is somewhat notable then after that it becomes trivia. I am hoping someone else who agrees with me will take a look at this and respond because lately unsourced statements about McCartney keep popping up. Having the section trimmed to Springsteen and maybe the Rolling Stones because of the field damage should seem less inviting to casual editors who want to add the latest info about Band X coming to town in the future. Right now it is not very encyclopedic and a bit of a mess. Sswonk (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Day/night seating capacity

Why are there two different capacities for night games versus day games? Can anyone explain this to me? Also, if an explanation does not already exist in the article could we put one in? Bmanphilly (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

During the day, due to compass direction of the sun and seats located opposite the batter in the center field bleachers, a "batter's eye" or dark backdrop is created by covering those seats with a dark (flat black) covering. Without the "batter's eye", bright sunlight would reflect off of the clothing, eyeglasses, sunglasses and jewelry of fans seated directly behind the pitcher, giving him an advantage when throwing the ball toward home plate, where the batter may have difficulty picking up the flight of the ball among the distractions in the background. Sswonk (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dodger Stadium not classic

I think it's inappropriate to refer to Dodger Stadium as a classic ballpark. Wrigley and Fenway, for sure. But Dodger Stadium was built without support pillars, it's outfield distances are symmetrical and it's surrounded by acres of parking lots.