Talk:Nationals Park

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance).

Baseball Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Event Venues (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues articles

Untitled

Isn't this going to be called Armed Forces Field? --Micahbrwn 23:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion about RFK recieving that title with the National Guard I believe paying 1 million. Didn't pan out. Here's the 1st article that came up when I googled it. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0412-23.htm

"Reaction to President"

I do not believe it is necessary to say that the President received "a mix of cheers and boos" when he threw out the first pitch. A) I don't see a citation of a video showing that there was a mix of cheers and boos, and B) I don't think the Yankee Stadium article includes the huge ovation he got when he threw out the first pitch at the World Series. This is cleary an example of bias against the former President and has nothing to do with the ballpark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.18.167 (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Working Title"

"Nationals Ballpark" is not the "working title", it is the current name for the ballpark as is evidenced by the logo. This name will almost certainly change once naming rights are sold but it's currently the official name. --dm ^(talk) 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Nats looking for a sponsored name or will they stick with "Nationals Park"? --VoL†ro/\/Force 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No word yet. The team owns the naming rights to the stadium so it seems unlikely they'd throw away millions of dollars by not selling the rights. --D. Monack | talk 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as of right now the team is using Nationals Park. Perhaps it will be change before the season starts. I think the page should be moved to Nationals Park.Smith03 (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As both names are provisional/unofficial, it's probably not worth the effort to move this to a name that will be changed in a few months anyway. Nationals Park is a redirect here anyway, so the point is really moot. - BillCJ (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, however with the current official logo of the stadium on the page reading "Nationals Park" it seems to me anyway that the article should match what the team is calling it Smith03 (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GEICO should buy naming rights to Nats Park. Geico is headquartered in DC; Progressive and Safeco already have their names on MLB parks. All three are much better than Snake Farm! 207.210.134.83 (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, answering a thread from 3 1/2 years ago. :) Given how the team got there, and how things have gone since the move, in baseball's latest attempt at baseball in DC, maybe the sponsor should be the Red Cross. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:NatsBallparkLogo.gif

File:NatsBallparkLogo.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 this Wikipedia article 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 04:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball

Patience, Grasshopper. Until the first game is played in the new one, and unless the old one has been demolished, you can't definitively say they're done with the old one and have opened the new one. That violates the wikipedia "crystal ball" rule. For all you know, there could be a leaky pipe that floods the stadium, undermines the infrastructure, and makes it fall into the river. Oops. Not likely, but wikipedia is not in the business of predicting the future. So when Nationals Park actually has its first game, you can close the book on RFK Stadium and open the book on this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is closed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions

Has anyone been to the new park and have hi-res photos that would show the outfield dimensions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone already corrected center field from 409 to 402. I suspect it's the notch just to the left of straightaway center that would be the 409 figure. Either that, or they got it wrong. I think it's also 377 to the notch in left center, not 370, although the front end of the notch could be where the 370 came from. In the old days, the odd dimensions at the parks came from the necessity of having it fit into a city block. Now they're doing it just to be cute. That's progress, of a sort. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per the videotape (which squares with [1]):

LF - 336 announced, though not seen

LCF - 377

CF - 402 (notch to its left a little deeper, as Jon Miller pointed out)

RCF - not posted / hidden by huge electronic billboard

RF - 335 Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIK OF IT!!!

some one put up a pik of it!!! its not a "idea" eney more!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben10027 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More info about the park?

Would it be possible to put more info about the park? Such as types of food, amenities and new features? Tenio (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Photos

Can someone supply a better lead photo (inside shot with players on the field? Current lead is a outside construction shot. We could probably get rid of construction shots now away (unless there something notable about the park in that state?). GWB's pitch is a great photo and is placed correctly: it shouldn't be promoted to the lead. ccwaters (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pope_pictures_055.jpg may be deleted

I have tagged File:Pope_pictures_055.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 01:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Taxation Without Representation Street"

From what I can gather, the name was never actually changed, they just considered it. Don't edit it unless you have something to back it up. The street signs around the ballpark make no mention of this name. BS24 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although there seem to be no news articles covering the final decision, the name "Taxation Without Representation Street SE" was added (not changed) to the ballpark blocks of South Capitol Street, as evidenced here-> [2] Do you think it would be appropriate to add this to the address or not. Most Washingtonians still refer to it as South Capitol, but the new name is still fairly common knowledge. Thedofc (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

The "History" section of this article is messy. One- or two-sentence factoids (some might even argue that they are trivia) are in their own sections, which seems unnecessary. (The 2009 and 2011 physical changes to the stadium should, I think, remain in the "History" section.) I suggest that a more continuous narrative be developed. Barring that, a list of "important events at Nationals Park" might be developed into its own article or perhaps at the bottom of this article—into which these factoids might be placed. Finally, although this is not a cleanup issue, I would argue that the history of the stadium's financing, which proved so politically divisive in the city (and which deeply affected the city's willingness to publicly finance projects in the future as well as significantly limited the city's financial ability to do so for 30 years) be documented in much more detail. The information is out there. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fence heights?

Does anyone know how high the fences are in this outfield? Please share that knowledge with the rest of us.

Yugiohfan2010 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nationals Park. 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) 10:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nationals Park. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527152537/http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090704&content_id=5690550&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was to http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090704&content_id=5690550&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was

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) 13:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium Is Closing

According to the newspapers this week...When the stadium was constructed, there were contractual provisions for a huge amount of ancillary development (a shopping mall or something, as part of the property; something like that). The park's occupancy permit from Washington D.C. was only issued provisionally, pending the follow-through on the development. It never happened, and this week the city said that Nationals Park will be closed and shut down when the permit expires in two weeks. Then a few days later they said they will extend th permit through the end of the year so they can play remaining games there. But after that: no more Nationals Park. It opened in 2018 and will close down in 2023.

Surprised none of this was in the section on Construction or Opening. Or in a Controversy section, as it's been an ongoing issue for all these years. And now they're closing the park. Will the demolish it, or what? Don't know. It's the keystone of the entire Navy Yard urban renewal. (Nvcy Yard has been a very dangerous ghetto until very recently. Now it's still not too safe to walk around at night and has gang shootings and stuff, but that's the normal state of affairs in Washington, D.C. everywhere. Worse in the last four years.) 108.51.27.122 (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the recent permit extension means they can play through next season while they negotiate.. In my opinion, they will probably work something out in the meantime as it is in the best interests of both parties. Spanneraol (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]