Talk:Guaranteed Rate Field

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guaranteed Rate Field article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Illinois Mid‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago High‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Baseball High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-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

United States 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.

"Ratings"

The ratings section is pointless. It has one rating, and absolutely no context on what it means or why we should care about that rating. It is nothing but an unhelpful and unsubstantiated factoid, and at most it belongs in a trivia section. I've re-removed it, and it shouldn't be readded unless it can be readded in a way that improves the article. It doesn't now. —Cleared as filed. 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't contextless. There is a rating for every single major league ballpark.--J3wishVulcan 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although pointless, it should be noted that ESPN named Comiskey to be one of the worst ballparks in the nation :p [1] --ShadowJester07 02:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This ESPN article is from 2003, prior to many of the changes that have been made in the stadium, making it a far better place that it was 3 years ago --rogerd 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point, and grounds for zapping all 30 of them on the various ballpark pages. Not only are they subjective, they are significantly out of date. Wahkeenah 06:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'The Cell'

Who calls it 'The Cell'? I don't know of anyone who calls it that... hell, we still call it Comiskey in Chicagoland, including staff at Comiskey... Ameise -- chat 13:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

everyone calls it the cell now

Go Sox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Arusnak 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, indeed. IvoShandor 05:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, the Cell is one of it's most popular nicknames. I just added "Sox Park," since that's one of it's more popular nicknames as well. As we've moved past the sale of the naming rights (and the fact that the White Sox won a World Series there and hosted an All-Star Game), only the lamest of the lame still refer to it as "Comiskey Park." Get over it, already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.85.173 (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

the intro is too large. Portions of it shold be put as subheadings before the renovations --Arusnak 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Updated picture anyone? The stadium really does look a lot nicer in my opinion with all the green seats. Anyone who has been to a game this year would likely agree. Much more classic look.

New picture added. IvoShandor 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you put that gray skied picture at the top? I don't really care but the other pic was obviously better. IvoShandor 20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was it not good it is also extrememly outdated. Don't add it back to the top of the page please. IvoShandor 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comiskey through the years?

Maybe it would be a good idea to provide some older pictures of Comiskey Park, before the extensive renovations, to demonstrate how much the park has been improved. 64.201.77.207 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have the one from 05, I would encourage anyone who has older photos to upload them if they are free use. IvoShandor 20:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:USCellularFieldLogo150.PNG

Image:USCellularFieldLogo150.PNG 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

There is an inconsistency in the number of wins in the 2008 season. In the "White Sox Record at Home" section it is listed as 89 wins. In "Attendance" it is 88 wins. I'd fix it, but neither of these has citations. Can someone more interested in this page resolve the problem?--Silpion (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

picture

Any pictures from 2009 of the stadium to add and replace the main one from 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.4.29 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of facade

I put together a photograph showing changes of the front facade. I did not upload it because:

I can't, I'm an IP
The second photograph has not had copyrights secured. It is from deadballbaseball.com and I think it would be best to ask the owner for permission to use this photograph. Because there might be some parts of the policy I don't know about (such as the specific license), I haven't sent any emails, but if someone would like to ask for permission (then, perhaps upload it), I would appreciate it.

Here it is, I hope nothing bad will happen just for posting it on imageshack.

Now, onto the real photo. Here are some changes you'll notice:

The large concrete deck has been replaced with a smaller steel and glass deck.
The temporary-looking (so it must be 2003) banner showing the name has been replaced with a more permanent engraving.
Stars have been painted on the central window.
How about those telephone wires right in front of the structure?

The upper deck looks smaller, and in 2004 the upper deck was decreased in capacity, so the renovations that led to these changes must have been in 2004. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{05:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Chicago Rockets?

Undid recent anonymous edit "Also the Cubs and the Chicago Rockets."

It may or may not be notable, but it needs rewriting, a reference, and it probably does not belong in the lede. On a hunch, it torns out this IP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.13.37.92) is making a number of similar edits on various ballpark sites of similar qualityTjoeC (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Cellular Field → Comiskey Park – According to many sources, the sponsor deal was to last from 2003 to 2012. The deal has expired and therefore it should naturally revert to its orginal name. Rt31914 (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not sure which sources you're referring to, but the team's site still calls it U.S. Cellular Field. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 00:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the previous comment, the White Sox website still refers to it as U.S. Cellular Field as do other third-party sources like ESPN. The only potential change would be if Sprint decides to rename the park for them since they bought U.S. Cellular's share of the Chicago market. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no justification. Check out whitesox.com. --rogerd (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and ~~speedy close~~.. @Rt31914: I don't know what "sources" these are you're referring to, but this source says the deal signed in 2003 was for 20 years, and that the name won't change even though Sprint bought U.S. Cellular's Chicago operations. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per the state of affairs of Joe Robbie Stadium getting renamed every few years. AutomobileDealer (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change the comments others leave. Muboshgu left his comment at "Oppose and speedy close" and you changed it to "strong oppose" which is not the same thing. Further, a stadium being renamed every few years is irrelevant, especially since that's not the case for this stadium. U.S. Cellular Field has been in place as a name for 11 years already and will be in place at least another 9. Even so, Joe Robbie Stadium is at Sun Life Stadium, which is in line with other active stadium article titles. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close You can't move the renamed New Comiskey Park over the Old Comiskey Park.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per WP:COMMONNAME. I believe many fans still call it New Comiskey Park, but I could be wrong. The Sun Life deal expires in 2015, by the way. Wikipedia is not a restaurant so I suggest we wait a few days before we close. 131.239.63.5 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sun Life Stadium has no relevance here. I struck the speedy close, which I suggested while this was still unanimous. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - i don't know about you, but I feel the frequent renaming of Miami stadium is relivant.
Support, on condition that the ballpark is referred more by the destination name. The point of the discussion is to find the most popular name that best fits the article. Do people call it Comiskey Park more or do they refer it to US Cellular Field? 71.250.249.254 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would depend on reliable sources, not simple word of mouth or other anecdotal evidence. As has been previously mentioned, the White Sox website refers to it as US Cellular Field as do third-party media outlets like ESPN and the Chicago Tribune. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please refrain from editing others' comments. Correcting a spelling mistake is one thing, but changing the content, even in a small way, is entirely another and is never appropriate. The fact that AutomobileDealer and then a supporting anonymous editor have both edited comments posted by others is not a good sign.

Also, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to simple colloquial usage of a term; it needs to have sources to back up the claim that an alternate name is widely used, more than the official name. I don't doubt that many still call it "New Comiskey" or just "Comiskey Park" (which is common for just about any facility that gets renamed), but the sources, both primary and secondary, are what determines the name of an article, and those sources overwhelmingly use the current name. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a malformed request. To nom or supporters of a move: what is supposed to happen to the Old Comiskey Park article? — AjaxSmack 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this was posted to the wrong talk page and should redirect here. As for the old ballpark, that would be moved to Comiskey Park (1910), like Yankee Stadium (1923) RT 11:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for lack of evidence.. If the official rename were proven, then, yes, move the current Comiskey Park to Comiskey Park (1910) and move this article to Comiskey Park, or make a disambiguation page, or something. It would not be appropriate to retain the U.S. Cellular Field promotional name any longer than necessary for accuracy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming

The sources indicate the name change to Guaranteed Rate Field will occur at the conclusion of the 2016 season. The move of this page shouldn't happen before then. All secondary sources are still referring to the park by the U.S. Cellular name (including the White Sox own website) and the signage is still in place. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree It's not suppose to occur until November 1, 2016 according to the press release. Why are we jumping the gun?

Roberto221 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]