Talk:Oakland Ballpark

Sea level rise

The paragraph on sea level rise that had been in the article was recently removed. I undid this deletion as it is a relevant aspect of the stadium. The projection in the U.N. study of a 9-23 inch rise over 100 years is such that the proposed site is probably OK. The site is at an elevation of 10-15 feet. However, since public value (in terms of zoning restrictions) is involved in the project, this aspect will likely be asked about by Fremont's taxpayers and others in the region. Also, the person who removed the section also mentioned that we will have lots of other problems if a sea level rise occurs. This is undoubtedly true, and makes it all the more important that we learn to ask these sorts of questions about every future project that is proposed near sea level in order to marshall our limited resources to be able to address those problems as they occur. This paragraph contains relevant information about this proposed stadium and deserves to stay. Brholden 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think this kind of speculation would be better placed in an article about sea level rise rather then an article about stadium construction. Because consider that if you're going to have sea level section in every stadium of construction project that MAY be effected by rising sea levels then you're going to have alot of adding to do as most of San Francisco, New York, Miami, Boston, etc... will be effected. Gateman1997 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Restore - As we should. Sea level rise is a serious issue. Not discussing it in every relevant place, such as on the page for this proposed stadium, is like putting blinders on and hoping it will go away. The proposed stadium is above the range in the U.N. report, but below numerous other projections that include some melting of the Greenland ice sheet that have been in the media. While it is true that we will have to add discussion of it to many other pages, it doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do. What do others think?Brholden 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave out, as not relevant to the discussion of the new stadium. UN report confirms the stadium is not in jeopardy anytime within its projected lifespan. Also you underestimate how many different articles would have to contain similar references. (It would be hundreds of thousands. Better to centralize any such discussion. Or at least limit to articles with subjects that would actually be impacted by sea level rise. Gateman1997 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CiscoFieldLogo.gif

Image:CiscoFieldLogo.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 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 02:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Pure speculation, but...

I suspect the unofficial nickname of this park will be "Kid Field" or something close. That would be a pun of its naming rights sponsor (from The Cisco Kid); it will also be the smallest MLB park. (Due to recent expansions, Fenway Park is now only the third smallest--fourth if you count the silly tarp at the Coliseum.) --RBBrittain (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you're wrong.Gateman1997 (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Oakland Ballpark/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

16 citations, 2 fair use images, not that really great, but looks like speculation to me. JJ98 (Talk) 06:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 11:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Subject definition

I'm sort of confused about the subject of this article. It seems like it has morphed over the years. Is the subject Howard Terminal specifically? Or is it the search for a new stadium, at various sites? Should it include the Vegas stuff? Nweil (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This page should be titled Howard Terminal

This page shouldn't be titled Oakland ballpark it should be Howard Terminal my predictions lol 😅 EverestMachine 4001 (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)