Jump to content

Talk:Forbes Field

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleForbes Field has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 24, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Fact issues

[edit]

Forbes was older than Wrigley. Shibe was steel and concrete, and opened sooner than Forbes. There was something about a fire. I'll have to look into that, but the older copies of Take Me Out to the Ballpark have photos of the demolition. Shibe suffered a fire, but I'm not at all sure the story about a fire at Forbes is correct, and should be omitted until we can be sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sources to back up everything that the article says. Shibe was only partially steel and concrete, part of the grandstand was still wood when it was remodeled. I was also confused about the demolition—I'll look back at Take Me Out to the Ballpark—but the Diamonds says it burnt, perhaps it burnt and the rest was demolished? As for Wrigley, I'll have to look into that, but the Bucs '95 yearbooks does say "At that point, only Chicago's Wrigley Field had been in service longer than Forbes Field, which opened in 1909." But then again, the article is about Three Rivers Stadium, so perhaps something was overlooked. Blackngold29 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yankee Stadium was also only "partially steel and concrete" when it opened in 1923. It wasn't all concrete until the bleachers were rebuilt around 1938. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Forbes Field football.jpg

[edit]

I edited the photo Commons:Image:Forbes Field football.jpg to remove the "Copyright Old Yankee maps" watermark. Check out the Commons:Image talk:Forbes Field football.jpg for more information.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Looks good. Blackngold29 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mine safety

[edit]

Forbes hosted a mine rescue contest in 1911 that was attended by President William Taft. And interesting fact I think can be included. Details here. Grsz11 22:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty odd event, seems notable to me. Go for it. blackngold29 22:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also found some images, though I'm not positive where they fit best, or how to work them around the quote boxes. Do you want to do FA on this? Grsz11 22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The File:Forbes Field aerial1.JPG picture is copyrighted and shouldn't be here as there are plenty of other free images; the FA reviewers wouldn't like that either. I think we could do an FA; I would like to put it up for a peer review and go over it a few more times before the nom. We can probably remove the Jim Woods quote about empty seats and move a picture there. blackngold29 22:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I was just thinking about the image. Did you prefer the newer (outside) image for the infobox? Grsz11 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The File:Forbes Field exterior.jpg? Yes, I like that one for the infobox as it's more clear than than the current one. We could probably keep that one somewhere in the article. blackngold29 22:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I like it too, but it's pretty blurry. I'd probably hold off on that one for now. blackngold29 22:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

I have been asked to do a peer review on this article in anticipating of an FA nomination.

Regarding Lead

  • Am I right in reading that the batting cage was actually in center field? As in on the field of play during the game?
    • Yes. blackngold29 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's correct. The cage was stored facing away from the field, between the base of a light tower, and the 457 foot sign. This [1] isn't the best illustration, but you can see it. You can also see the Dreyfuss monument in straightaway center, and the ivy on the left and center field walls. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that photo, you can also kind of see a strip on the ground parallelling the third base line. They had a mechanical tarpaulin under it, installed sometime in the 60s. You can see that strip better in this photo: [2] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The second photo is a dead link, I'm impressed, I've heard of flag poles on the field of play ala Minute Maid Park but to have the actual batting cage sitting on the warning track, well that's downright amazing to me. H1nkles (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It still works for me, even after a reboot. Try it again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The second photo I found via Google Images, so it might have been a "temporary" link of some kind. Objects on the field of play were not unusual. Look at Polo Grounds and you'll see the bullpens sitting in fair territory, in deep left and right center. And look at Yankee Stadium (1923) and you'll see the monuments out near the 457 sign, in a similar location to the Forbes batting cage. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm watching Angels in the Outfield, where most of the action scenes were filmed at Forbes Field. Roughly 30-40 minutes into it, there's a shot from behind home plate, and you can see the batting cage and the Dreyfuss monument fairly clearly. FYI, in the earlier scene where they score 5 runs in the 3rd inning of a game against the Reds, some scenes are at Forbes, and other scenes are at L.A.'s Wrigley Field. There are several ways to tell that. Later, if interested. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I could upload some screen captures, but the fair-use hornets would be all over it in a New York minute. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I didn't know that Angel's in the Outfield was filmed at Forbes Field, there you go teaching me something new again. Very impressive. H1nkles (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The 1951 version, obviously; not the remake. The film's intro makes a point of thanking the Pirates for making their ballpark and other resources available, while emphasizing that the story could be anywhere. They leave out the part about some of the scenes being shot at L.A. Wrigley, which was used in more Hollywood productions than I can count. But with Forbes long gone, that 1951 movie might be the best film record we have of the place. There was another 1950s film with the odd-sounding title, Roogie's Bump, which made extensive use of Ebbets Field; and The Stratton Story, which featured Comiskey Park prominently. I could go on. :) Speaking of old Comiskey, they had a stock shot in Angels that was labeled "Polo Grounds" but which was actually Comiskey. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Another old-time subtlety is evident in one scene where a Pirates player homers. Rounding third base, he gets a handshake and a backslap from the third base coach - nothing unusual. A couple of seconds after that, a photographer, standing on the field, takes a flash photo (it being a night game). Nowadays photographers generally don't go on the field during the games, but it was common practice in those days. The famous Ty Cobb photo was taken by a photographer on the field just up the third base line from the coaches box. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also over flow crowds were allowed to sit in center field, again in the field of play during the game?!?
  • The lead does not discuss boxing or other events held at the field, which you cover in the article. H1nkles (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the planning and design section you mention that the stadium is made out of concrete and steal twice. Once is sufficient. I would remove the quote from the third paragraph and put it into the second, where you have the first reference to concrete and steal. Then start the third paragraph with the initial construction information.
  • Check en dashes, per WP:DASH you want to put en dashes to indicate scores such as the 8–1 score in the "Opening" section. H1nkles (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of quote boxes can be controversial at FAC. I did some hunting but could not find anything in the MOS on this regard. I found an FA, Alpha Phi Alpha that passed with quote boxes that were colored. If used judiciously, I think the quote boxes add significantly to the article and I would fight for their inclusion (if you get criticism from the FA community). On that note though, I question the third quote by David Mazeroski. It goes within the context of the article but I don't really see how it adds to the article. H1nkles (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch statements like this, "The stadium was widely considered the best in the league." It can be construed as weasel wording.
  • This term, "Even at its distance..." when refering to the height of the walls is confusing for non-baseball people. I know your intent is to indicate that even though the walls were a considerable distance from home plate, they were also high in order to further challenge the hitters. Consider rewording just to make it plainly obvious to people unfamiliar with the nuances of baseball.
    • I added some explination. It's difficult to call it a "high and long" fence because that's POV, but all the sources imply that since they're usually written for baseball fans. blackngold29 17:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Playing surface" section you link to home run twice, even though one is specifically to outside the park homeruns, both links are to the same article, once is sufficient.
  • In this quote, "breaking up a double-play" consider adding "potential" since no play in baseball is guaranteed.
  • The term "at Forbes Field" is found three times in the "Seating and tickets" section, consider removing one or two of them since the reader knows from the context that it was at Forbes Field.
  • The Forbes Field 1909 photo is very small and of such poor quality I question its inclusion. Expanding it helps but as it looks in the article it's hard to make out what one is looking at.
  • In the first paragraph in the "Memorials" section you may want to reference Mazeroski's walk off homerun so that the reader understands the signifance of Mazeroski's attendance in 2000. It is discussed in the next paragraph but that is out of chronological order and doesn't flow as naturally as it would if it were referenced earlier (IMHO).
  • I don't think you need to wikilink radio, it isn't really necessary.
  • "Acheived the feat" is stated twice in two sentences, consider rewording to remove redundant phrasing.
  • "and received various national championship selections in 1910, 1915, 1916, 1917, and 1918" This statement is awkward. Instead consider saying, "and earned national championships in...."
  • Any reason to list the time of the Giants vs. Pirates football game? Seems a little too detailed unless there's something notable about the time that I'm missing.
  • Watch puff wording in this statement, "...and became one of the most recognizable boxers in the city". That's also an opinion even though it's sourced.
  • "but fought for the knockout and was knocked out himself, losing the fight." You don't need, "losing the fight" this is made obvious by the fact that he was knocked out.
    • Removed.

(outdent) That's it for my review. It's a great article about an icon of American sports history full of legend and lore, I found myself wishing I could have gone one July afternoon in 1910 and bought a $1 ticket to see the Pirates play my (then) New York Giants. Sorry for waxing nostalgic, keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of the left field area called "Greenberg Gardens" and "Kiner's Korner". That's a significant omission, since practically every book that discusses Forbes mentions that - and it's reinforced by Ralph Kiner calling his own interview show "Kiner's Korner" for many years. Also, the extension of the double deck into right field is first mentioned after a reference to Ruth homering over it. I'm trying to figure out how to reword some of that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the footnote, I question the "first ever curtain call", for Dale Long. How is the author in any position to know something like that? I find it hard to believe Ruth, for example, never took any kind of "curtain call". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like everything on WP, it's up to the individual to evaluate the source that the info comes from. It is a reliable source, and therefore good enough for WP. blackngold29 19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a book published by some guy. That doesn't automatically make it a "reliable" source. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider Random House "some guy", then yeah it is. I've never seen any evidence to refute it; not that I've looked. :) blackngold29 21:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the author, ya silly. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section called "Playing surface" needs some work (starting with its title) so I'll see what I can do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batting cage, etc.

[edit]

I uploaded this [3] on the wikia baseball site. I gather they have rather less restrictive rules, but we'll find out. In any case, this is a frame from Angels in the Outfield that shows the batting cage and the Dreyfuss monument on the playing field in the background. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great shot, I've never seen the old version, I think I'll have to pick it up some time. H1nkles (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On User talk:Blackngold29 I've linked a couple more possibly interesting screenshots. I must tell you that what caught my attention with that old movie, other than the baseball stuff, is how stunning the young Janet Leigh was. Just to let you know I don't think about baseball all the time. :) I hasten to add that she's not in the screenshots I uploaded. That's just a side comment. The movie is available on DVD. I got it from Barnes & Noble not too long ago. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's Janet [4] disgustedly watching the inept Pirates. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homestead Grays 1913

[edit]
Homestead Grays, 1913.

This photo doesn't look like any part of Forbes Field, no matter what its source claims. We're better off omitting it, so we don't look stupid. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is odd. I agree that it doesn't look like Forbes (not that any of us would know what it looked like in 1913), but the source clearly says it is. The picture should be in the Homestead Grays article, but should probably be omitted from this article because it doesn't clearly show Forbes. blackngold29 22:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the source [5] does not state that this is Forbes Field. It says that "In later years the Homestead Grays, playing at Forbes Field here and Griffith Stadium in Washington, won eight out of nine Negro National League titles." The word "here" refers to Pittsburgh itself, not the photo, pointing out that they shared Pittsburgh and Washington as home fields. In fact, the Grays seem to have been largely (or maybe fully) a barnstorming team in their early years. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Lowry book, Green Cathedrals, states that the Grays tenure here was during 1939-1948. The also played at Washington, of course. I don't see anything to indicate where they played in the 1910s or 20s. They did share Greenlee Field with the Crawfords for a year or two prior to settling at Forbes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of succession box for Pitt Panthers

[edit]

Succession boxes exists for all tenants. One editor insists that only the Pitt Panther succession box should be removed because it falls under the authority of the College Football Wikiproject. No authority exists for any one Wikiproject nor does such a policy exist across Wikipedia. Removing the box leaves the Events and Tenants listing incomplete. Please leave your commentary about whether it is appropriate to remove the Pitt Panthers or other succession boxes for this article. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to delete it. This is a matter of a style that's widely-used in articles. A specific project doesn't have any authority over it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor and I are close to engaging in an edit war. Can you please add your comments at those pages. I also do not feel I can continue to revert his edits without also engaging in an edit war. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the ballpark pages are on my watch list. If he reverts again without commenting here, I'll go after him. Don't revert it again yourself, as it would be seen as edit-warring even though you're not violating the 3-revert rule yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The succession boxes are sort of a side discussion about an overall strict standardization of college football team-specific navboxes templates. In essence, he has come up with a style and and is going through every college football team group and forcing not only the style, but which articles should be included, as well as which categorizations of those articles should be and disallowing any customization an a team-by-team basis, and without regards to other Wikiprojects those articles fall under, and irregardless of whether many of the articles are redlinked (particularly season by season articles). With him being a being a primary editor of Big Ten articles, forcing those standards on dissimilar teams (and Pitt, which I primarily edit, isn't even that dissimilar), but to me it doesn't make sense at all, IMO. I have listed that discussion as an RfC. If such guidelines were adopted and spread outside that project, it would in essence force the Pittsburgh Pirates to employ a navbox identical to the New York Yankees, or any other team, irregardless of what individual customization would make sense for each particular franchise (for instance, removing Momument Park honorees from the Yankees Navbox). I've engaged this strict standardization movement now, because I fear its spread, and because this one size fits all approach is not employed anywhere else as far as I know, probably for good common sense reasons, IMO. I'm not opposed to general guidelines, but rather the forced inclusion of articles or article categories in a navbox that don't make sense for one team, and the forced exclusion of others. And if you have any thoughts on that, your comments would be appreciated on that issue as well. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that you visit with User:Killervogel5, who takes a strong interest in all things having to do with sports in Pennsylvania, or at least in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. [Or I'll do it.] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Succession Boxes Seems like this is déjà vu all over again. Without hearing from this editor directly my assumption of good faith is being tested with this borderline and repetitive "delete" vandalism, especially when to me the essence of Wikipedia is to be a cited fact based encyclopedia of knowledge . . . in that specific sense the worst possible thing to befall us all is deletion of cited facts down the proverbial memory hole. Thanks to CP for alerting me to these and doing his best to retain this data, at this moment I will believe that this editor does have some misguided though reasoned explanation, but even with a reason, consensus should be gained and at least attempted before systemic deletions of facts. Its my sincere hope that any widespread deletions are discussed on talk pages long long before being used to slice up wikipedia articles. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 17:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forbes Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forbes Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Forbes Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • There is uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs.
  • The "Playing field evolution" and "Baseball" sections are long and have lots of small paragraphs. I suggest that a subject-matter expert read through the text, ensure that nothing needs to be trimmed or removed, merge paragraphs and use more level 3 headings, if appropriate.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forbes_Field&oldid=1251131403"