Jump to content

Talk:Yankee Stadium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Yankee Stadium is a rival of Notre Dame?

Why is this even listed there? How can an MLB stadium be a rival of NCAA football? Or perhaps its a catholic thing....


Other changes to the NY sports landscape?

I don't think we need that long paragraph about the other stadiums being constructed in the NYC area. This is not all part of one coherent plan (such as the one that brought us both KeySpan Park and Richmond County Bank Ballpark). The only real mention in context to the article is Citi Field. We can follow other articles and have external links to the other future stadiums. Milchama 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename the article?

I do not think we should change the article name yet until the new stadium opens. If no sponsor name is in place, then we'll worry about it. One model to look at is Busch Stadium, which was only changed to the new stadium after it opened.

This new stadium is technically "Yankee Stadium III", as the current stadium has been referred to as "Yankee Stadium II" or "The New Stadium" since the 1970s renovations. Milchama 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The official New York Yankees web site lists the name of the new stadium as "The New Yankee Stadium". [1] When there is an official name that differs from the existing Yankee Stadium (such as Yankee Stadium at Chase Plaza), then we should change the name. user:mnw2000 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The team and city stopped calling the refurbished original ballpark "New Yankee Stadium" or "Yankee Stadium II" a long time ago. It's just "Yankee Stadium." The team and league use "New Yankee Stadium" to refer to this one, and therefore so should we. It appears likely that the "New" will no longer be official once the stadium opens, as the exterior signage already in place reads simply "Yankee Stadium"[2]. At that point, we should probably rename this article and move the article about the old stadium to something like Yankee Stadium (1923-2008). Then again, as noted the club may well sell "Yankee Stadium at ______ Place" naming rights, and if they do that should become the new name. That seems to have cooled down, and now may well not happen. For now, keep it as it is. SixFourThree (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

I concur. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is an idea for this article: Once the new Stadium opens, create an entirely new article and rename this one "Construction of Yankee Stadium III" or something similar. -Wakamusha (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that idea, and I think it will just create confusion and the two separate articles ending up back together. --Michael Greiner 22:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A good precedent for the naming would be Wembley Stadium (1923) and Wembley Stadium. I don't think a separate construction article is needed. Much of that is detail about either the politics or of the minutia about the construction. I'm sure you could write a lengthy article about the 1923 construction also, but a paragraph or two should suffice in both cases, once it's an accomplished fact. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I feel that this article should be merged with Yankee Stadium. But if you wish to keep them separate, then this article should be renamed YANKEE STADIUM (2009)--Subman758 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Merging makes no sense, as they are separate buildings, one with a lengthy history, and the other expected to have. Just as with Busch Stadium, Comiskey, etc. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
See the discussion at #New Yankee Stadium below. The reasons are just as strong today as they were then not to call the article itself "Yankee Stadium (2009)", for example, that the most common search term for non-enthusiasts will still be "New Yankee Stadium", and will probably be so for the next year or two at least.
In fact there was powerful evidence (see Talk:Yankee Stadium#The lingering death) that "Yankee Stadium" (or "Old Yankee Stadium"), rather than "Yankee Stadium (1923)", is still a live, current term when Mark Teixeira's re-signing was announced there, rather than somewhere else [news that hit The Boston Globe and Providence sportscasts because Teixeira wasn't signing with the Red Sox]. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Serious lack of citation in "Public Opinion" section

Lots of figures, opinions of public officials, et cetera are used without any citation. This needs to be addressed.

Agreed. The tense is also off, reflecting the time in which it was written. I'll take a crack at it later today. SixFourThree (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

ticket prices

Tickets are $14 - $400. Just announced at this years season opener. So take it out of unknown elements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.12.120 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be those $14 tickets are awesome. Those are probably benches in the park where the old stadium was. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball-only stadium

I'm removing the sentence Unlike the original, it will be a baseball-only stadium. It's misleading - the original Yankee Stadium was not intended to be a multi-sport facility (as 1960s and 1970s facilities such as Shea Stadium, Riverfront Stadium and Three Rivers Stadium, among others), although other sports were indeed played there throughout its history. SixFourThree (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Not true. Yankee Stadium was designed with football and track in mind also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I will gladly stand corrected. SixFourThree (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
Were there any sports besides baseball at the 1976 version? I'm thinking they had soccer matches there occasionally. The 1923 version was definitely multi-purpose. That's why they laid out the bleachers the way they did, with sides that were 90 degrees or parallel to the third-base stands. The warning track was originally a running track. The Polo Grounds was multi-purpose also, from Day One. But I wonder about 1976-date? Arguably it was designed primarily with baseball in mind, even if other sports were occasionally played there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I put the wording back but I changed it to try to reduce the seemingly-condescending tone of the original comment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't know - the Cosmos were already in Giants Stadium when "New Yankee Stadium" (as it was then known) opened. So were, obviously, the Giants. Maybe a college team might have played there? SixFourThree (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
The Yankee Stadium article says the New York Cosmos palyed there in 1976, the first year the remodeled Stadium opened. Maybe that's what I was thinking of, although I think there have been other games there since then. But that doesn't mean the 1976 Stadium was designed for it. The 1923 Stadium definitely was. Which is why I re-worded it the way I did. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Did some more digging, and found this photo[3] of the Cosmos in what was then called "New Yankee Stadium" - August, 1976. Doesn't give us any indication as to whether the Stadium was designed with soccer in mind, though. SixFourThree (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
the whole "multi sport facility" paragraph is confusing. it says the new stadium will be more like the classic stadium. then, it says the classic stadium was a multi sport facility. then, it says the new stadium will be only for baseball. so how will the new satdium be like the classic multi sport facitlity if it's only for baseball? O.o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.20.134 (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

New piks

PUT in new pics..!!!!!! construction 1s!! k?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben10027 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Curse"

Should the happenings with the construction worker and the Red sox jersey be mentioned? I'm leaving it out for now... Ehccheehcche (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless now, since the Red Sox fans couldn't keep it a secret. And by the Yankees taking the high road, auctioning the shirt and donating proceeds to the Jimmy Fund, that would nullify any "curse". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think mentioning a curse is pointless, but the situation I think merits at least a quick mention. They went through a lot of work to make sure it was out of there.Tithonfury (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a funny story. I'm not sure it belongs here, though. Maybe in the Yankees / Red Sox Rivalry page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think a brief mention here, along with a wikilink to the rivalry page would be sufficient. On a side note, I'm sending him money for his defense if he asks for it, and I'm an Astros fan!
They didn't play this very well. The guy should have waited until the stadium was completed and then said he did it but isn't saying where. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Yes, something about "jerseygate" should be mentioned. It seems to be a fairly significant event in the construction history of the stadium, if only for trivial and information purposes. Plus it's funny! Tjrover (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)tjrover

Since the Yankees are auctioning it and donating the proceeds to the Jimmy Fund, this could reverse whatever curse the Red Sox fan was trying to put on the team. In short, it could turn back on the Red Sox. Just what they need - another 86-year wait. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames?

These alleged nicknames need citations. The fact that you personally know fans who use those nicknames is not sufficient. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that people are calling the ballpark Yankee Stadium II/III, but I think one of the two should be picked. Is it Yankee Stadium II because this is literally the second stadium constructed with the 'Yankee Stadium' name? Or do you think it should be 'Yankee Stadium III' because of the renovation of Yankee Stadium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.80.159 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this place called the house that Jeter built? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.225.20 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who says it is? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
"The house that jersey built/unbuilt" might have a better chance! - BillCJ (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
As in the Ortiz jersey? >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the main point, I agree that we need citations. "Yankee Stadium II / III" just doesn't make any sense. "Yankee Stadium II" was what the original stadium was called after renovations (as seen in plenty of New York Times articles from the period[4][5]). III might make sense, since it does seem to get some use. I do think we need to address the first paragraph of the article. The team refers to it as "the new Yankee Stadium" (note capitalization) in its press materials. So how would you feel about something like this:

New Yankee Stadium is the working name of the new ballpark for the New York Yankees, currently under construction. When it opens, the new ballpark will retain the Yankee Stadium title held by the current stadium.

--SixFourThree (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Regardless of the other nicknames, the new place is still called "The Stadium".[6] SixFourThree (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree
No it's not - not by itself. I read that article, and the phrase "the Stadium" is a reference to the previously mentioned "Yankee Stadium". If it weren't in context, it wouldn't mean a thing. -Sme3 (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree - "The Stadium" was an accepted nickname for the old place. Just as in the old days, when used by the team as a generic description, "stadium" is not capitalized. When used as a nickname, it is. See "Yankees opener all about the Stadium"[7] - the capitalization is deliberate. I might agree that your standard should apply to "New Yankee Stadium" as no longer being a nickname since the word "new" is usually lower-case and only intended to differentiate it from the "old" Yankee Stadium. SixFourThree (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree
The problem I have with "the Stadium" is that it can take on many different meanings, depending on where you are. In the Meadowlands, "the Stadium" refers to Giants Stadium. Similarly, in the New York-region, "the City" refers to Manhattan (not Jersey City, Garden City, Co-op City, or Yonkers). You especially see this, on sports venues, when it is corporately sponsored, and the author doesn't want to give publicity to that corporation. However, unlike Shea Stadium (William A. Shea Municipal Stadium) or Nassau Coliseum (Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum), the nickname "the Stadium" doesn't uniquely identify the place.
I will admit that my opinion may be in the minority, and would respect to hear feedback from some other (registered) users. In fact, I just visited the AT&T Park page, and saw "The House that Bonds Built" as a nickname, which IMO is ridiculous. But I am going to revert the current Yankee Stadium edit, made by an anonymous IP user, which added nonsense such as "The New Home in the Bronx". -Sme3 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"The House that Bonds Built"? Cute. A nice play on words. "The Stadium" for the old Yankee Stadium might have worked, but I don't think it does for the new one, for the reasons you say. As far as "New"/"new" Yankee Stadium, I saw a clip recently showing the re-opening of Yankee Stadium in 1976. On the message board, it said, "Welcome to the New Yankee Stadium". Imagine that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Whether we think it works or not (or is unique, or whatever), it is a widely-used nickname for the new Yankee Stadium and therefore merits inclusion in the Infobox. If it's also a widely used nickname for Giants Stadium, then it should be so noted on that page as well. SixFourThree (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree
I can accept your claim that uniqueness is not a requirement, but the term should not be generic. My major disagreement with your argument is where you say "it is a widely-used nickname for the new Yankee Stadium". It is not. It is a widely-used phrase used to refer to any stadium. Unless used in the context of the Yankees or the Bronx, the term is completely ambiguous. Similarly, thousands of people in New Jersey refer to Newark Airport simply as "the airport". But you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would support that as a definitive nickname. -Sme3 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"Should not be" is a value judgment. One I tend to agree with, but not in any way relevant. It is used as a nickname for the new park, just as it was for the old park. You have provided an excellent example in your response - if Newark Liberty Airport was referred to in print as "the Airport" - capital A - then it would be an official nickname. But that's not the case, so it isn't. Yankee Stadium is referred to by legitimate sources as "the Stadium", capital S, where other stadiums are referred to as "the stadium." Now, we might not like the nickname, but that doesn't change reality. And since Wikipedia is not meant to set policy, only reflect it, "The Stadium" as a nickname for Yankee Stadium should be included. SixFourThree (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree
I agree. Growing up in Queens, in the shadow of Shea Stadium, there was little question that when someone mentioned "The Stadium" they were referring to the stadium in the Bronx. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Find a citation, in writing, where "The Stadium" refers to Yankee Stadium without mention of "Yankees" or "Bronx" to put it in context, and I'll change my mind. Otherwise, it's an ambiguous term (another example: do we list "Dave" as a nickname for David Letterman? No, because it's ambiguous. We do list "A-Rod" as a nickname for Alexander Rodriguez because it's definitive.) -Sme3 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting, because we're getting squeezed) I already did provide a citation. But, at the risk of seeming like OR, here's another - from the Yankees' website[8], the article headlined "It's a grand new era in Stadium history". "Stadium" is the only word capitalized (aside from the first). When the Yankees (and the press) use the word, it is a proper noun and is capitalized. Compare that with this section from the Dodgers' webpage[9] about their stadium (emphasis in all examples mine):

The 56,000-seat Dodger Stadium has parking for 16,000 automobiles on 21 terraced lots adjacent to the same elevations as the six different seating levels. More than 3,400 trees cover the 300 acres of beautiful landscape, which is maintained by a full-time staff of gardeners. The Dodgers employ a full-time grounds crew and maintenance staff that keeps all aspects of the stadium in immaculate condition throughout the season making Dodger Stadium one of the best maintained facilities in the country.

or the Angels' page[10]:

Anaheim Stadium had been the home of the Angels since their move from Los Angeles following the 1965 season. The stadium opened April 9, 1966, as the California Angels hosted the San Francisco Giants in an exhibition game.

or a couple more ballparks labeled "stadium":

Kauffman Stadium's unique features include a 322-foot-wide water spectacular. The water spectacular is the largest privately funded fountain in the world. In keeping with the architecture of the stadium, the existing water spectacular featuring cascading water now extends near the left field corner.[11]

On August 26, 1996, Pro Player, the sports apparel brand of Fruit of the Loom, sponsored the renaming of Joe Robbie Stadium as Pro Player Stadium. The name was changed from Pro Player Stadium to Dolphin Stadium on January 09, 2005. Plans for the stadium were first announced on March 5, 1984. The clearing for the stadium site began on July 22, 1985, and groundbreaking ceremonies were held on December 1, 1985.[12]

Compare those with the Yankees' site[13]:

The Great Hall, a wide and inviting 31,000-square- foot space located between the exterior wall and the interior of the Stadium

The Stadium also offers enhanced accessibility for guests with limited seeing...

There are three retail stores, an art gallery and a collectibles store in Yankee Stadium. The Home Plate Store, located in the Great Hall behind home plate, is home to the largest selection of Yankees merchandise and memorabilia at the Stadium.

Every single instance of "the Stadium" on the relevant Yankees page is capitalized. It is not capitalized when other teams refer to their stadiums. This useage is also found in the press:

Once the game began, it was cozy at the usually crammed Stadium. (New York Times)[14]

Despite this, (Dodgers owner) McCourt was adamant about what he's aiming for: "We would love to see the marathon start at Dodger Stadium and finish at the ocean," he said. "From the stadium to the sea. . . . The vision is to incorporate the great icons of L.A. -- Hollywood, Beverly Hills, the ocean -- so that people from all over the world want to come and run a race that is totally unique. We want this to be a once in a lifetime race you'll never forget." (Los Angeles Times)[15]

In the 412 routine inspections of Angel Stadium food venues conducted by the Health Care Agency since 2005, vermin violations were found 25 percent of the time. Major vermin violations were 33 percent of all major food safety violations found at the stadium. (Orange County Register)[16]

Whew. Sorry, didn't mean to take up so much space, but I hope you get my point. Now, you and I may not like using a generic name like "the Stadium" as a nickname for one specific ballpark. But we can't avoid the fact that it is in common use, and the article should reflect that. SixFourThree (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

SixFourThree, I don't question any of what you said, and commend the research you've done to come up with that. My original point was not about the capitalization (although it does change the meaning slightly), but the context. In my previous comment, I asked for uses of the term without mention of "Yankees" or "Bronx" to put it in context. But seeing that you and I have reached an impasse, and neither of us has the authority to accept or reject an edit, there's really no point for us to continue. I would really like to solicit input from other users - so far, Baseball Bugs seems to agree with me (though not particularly strongly), and Rlendog agrees with you (though it's seemingly original research). Anyone else have a stance on this issue? Anyone? -Sme3 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll accept that more input is always a good thing, but I'm not exactly sure what the standard you're looking to meet is. Capitalization is context in this case - "The Stadium" is different than "The stadium" because "The Stadium" is universally applied to Yankee Stadium and only Yankee Stadium. As for the context you mention, most historical sources for "The House That Ruth Built" also tend to have mentioned either "Yankees" or "The Bronx". I would suspect that most references to "The Big A" incorporate the words "Anaheim," "Orange County" or "Angels" prominently. Just because a nickname is frequently used in context doesn't make it any less a nickname. Is "The Jake" not a legitimate nickname for Progressive Field just because most uses also include "Cleveland" or "Indians"? I'm obviously not understanding what you're looking for. I agree with your opinion that "The Stadium" is probably not a good nickname for Yankee Stadium (which, while I don't want to speak for him, seems to be Bugs' opinion as well), but I don't see how we can really argue that it is, in fact, a commonly used nickname for the place by fans, the press, Major League Baseball, and the Yankees organization itself. SixFourThree (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree
I disagree with your claims that "capitalization is context" and that "The Stadium is universally applied to Yankee Stadium and only Yankee Stadium." This is the fundamental difference between your view on the topic and mine. You say "a nickname frequently used in context doesn't make it any less of a nickname" which is true, but this doesn't say what makes it a nickname in the first place. To look at one of your examples, there is only one venue that can stake claim to the name "The House That Ruth Built" (agreed); as is similar for some other nicknames ("The Rock" for Prudential Center or "The Igloo" for Mellon Arena) which contain no common words with the official title. These are indisputable in- or out-of-context. But "The Stadium" can be used for any number of stadiums - and without putting it in context elsewhere in the writing, it is ambiguious - capitalized or not.
Look, this discussion is getting nowhere. I still disagree that "The Stadium" is a legitimate nickname, but quite honestly isn't something that I have the time or energy (or passion) to deal with. This is why I sought some other thoughts on the topic. I have no authority on the matter, so I'll just cast my vote as opposed, and leave it at that. Sme3 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, and I hate to belabor the point, but your argument seems to be primarilty about whether "The Stadium" is a good nickname. I'm afraid that isn't the issue here at all. It demonstrably is a nickname used to describe "Yankee Stadium" in a way not applied to other stadiums (reliable sources noted above), and it isn't our place here to pass judgment on reality, only reflect it. What's to vote on? "The Stadium" was a legitimate enough nickname to be included in the old stadium's page, the same nickname has been applied to the new stadium by the team, fans and media, so therefore I'm going to put it back in. SixFourThree (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree
I just see no consensus for this interpretation. The contexts in which "The Stadium" or "the Stadium" refers to Yankee Stadium (1923 or 2009) are just too narrow. And if other stadia's owners include identifying information where the Yankees or the New York press do not, that's not really strong evidence that they think of The Stadium as the one in the Bronx from which Anaheim or Wembley Stadium must be distinguished. [A stronger example might be "the Capitol" (for the U.S. Congress as opposed to state or foreign capitol buildings), but even that's very weak, even without the original Roman Capitol as an equally-good claimant to the unmodified name.] I'm casting my hypothetical vote, too, as opposed. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I hate to belabor the point but must respectfully disagree. There is indeed established consensus, given that "The Stadium" has been listed as a nickname in the old park's entry for years. So the validity of the nickname has long since been resolved, reducing the question of inclusion on this page to simply: Is the nickname also used to refer to the new park? We have multiple reliable sources confirming the answer yes. SixFourThree (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

"The Stadium" Article

(moved from Nicknames to separate subheading) -Sme3 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just learned that The Stadium is a redirect to this article. For those of us forced to endure existence outside of New York, "The Stadium" is completely ambiguous. In fact, an older version of the article is about a stadium in England. IMO, it should redirect to stadium. - Eureka Lott 17:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch Eureka. I agree, it should redirect to "Stadium". Looking at the history, one particular user redirected it to Yankee Stadium 3 times since March 2007; the first time it was reverted back to the one in England, the second time in April 07 it was changed to a redirect to "Stadium", and the third time in March 08 it stuck. I'm tempted to change it to the generic Stadium redirect, but I don't know the rules/etiquette on changing these types of things -- where would such a discussion take place? Since no one has bothered with the original (England) Stadium article in 2 years, I'd assume it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability and doesn't need to be restored. -Sme3 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it should redirect simply to "stadium". I happened to see on the Cleveland Stadium talk page that the locals used the expression "the Stadium" (as the writer put it) to refer to their local stadium. The term "The Stadium" might have applied properly to The House That Ruth Built, simply because of its overwhelming history. The new Yankee Stadium has no history. Nationals Park has more history than the new Yankee Stadium does. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Or perhaps it should be deleted altogether? Nobody looking for information on a stadium will search for "The stadium". -Sme3 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Never say nobody. Besides, you delete it and it will show up again soon. Maybe turn it into a disambig page? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Other than looking for The Bronx, I don't think someone would put "The" in front of a search - but I'll accept your statement. in this case, I'd favor a redirect to Stadium over a disambig page. What would the disambig say: "The Stadium could refer to: stadium (an outdoor structure for sporting events); Yankee Stadium; Tiger Stadium; Giants Stadium; Dodger Stadium; Veterans Stadium; etc...". A disambig has the potential to really get out of hand. -Sme3 (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Whose House

I thought that it was called The house that Jeter built not A-rod?--Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So far, it has not really been called anything other than "New Yankee Stadium." Locoman412 (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be the House that George built more than anything, George Steinbrenner was the engine behind the whole thing, without him it doesn't get built, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.187.53 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the legal issues about the city putting more money into this project then any other pro sports arena/stadium, the destruction of beloved park land to build the stadium, and the city being sued for tax evasion for over valuing the land that the stadium is on should all be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Met 13 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of this is already addressed appropriately in the "Financing" and "Public opinion > Objections" sections. Besides, the signature bot outed you as a Mets fan. --RBBrittain (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (Not a Yankees fan, but I respect them)
The majority of the crap in this article will be a footnote and/or relegated as trivial BS undeserving as mention once they start playing games and making history in the new park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.187.53 (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Should the new photo of it be in construction or should we keep the rendering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben10027 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A bold move

I have decided to move this to Yankee Stadium (2009) since this is going to be referenced as "Yankee Stadium" anyway, and we'd never use a nickname as a "real" title in an encyclopedia. ViperSnake151 00:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A good model for how to do this would be Wembley Stadium. The old one was renamed Wembley Stadium (1923) - how's that for a coincidence - and once the new one has officially opened, you could rename Yankee Stadium to Yankee Stadium (1923) and then rename Yankee Stadium (2009) to Yankee Stadium. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
User:DinoZon reverted the move wothout giving any explanation in the move summary or this page. I've therefore reverted it as non-consensual. - BillCJ (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this change and the eventual change of the old stadium to "Yankee Stadium (1923)" or possibly "Yankee Stadium (1923-2008)" Frank Anchor Talk to me 18:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
1923-2008 sounds like a "memorial". Wembley Stadium is the right model to use. Note that the Yankees website calls it "New Yankee Stadium". Presumably that's just a temporary thing until they move in, then it will be "Yankee Stadium" vs. "Old Yankee Stadium". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

New Yankee Stadium

We should avoid all mentions of "Yankee Stadium I, II, or III" in naming the articles because some people will consider the new Yankee Stadium to be "Yankee Stadium II". Furthermore, "New" was never part of the upcoming stadium's name - it was merely included with the title "Yankee Stadium" on the Yankees website/promotional materials to distinguish it from the existing Yankee Stadium at 161st/River. I agree in using years to identify the stadiums - although, I think the original Yankee Stadium is so iconic, it needs no year to identify it, but rather, the year should be used to identify the new stadium. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wembley Stadium (1923) was also iconic in its way, but it's now qualified by a year because only the current Wembley Stadium actually exists. I think the same pattern should be observed with Yankee Stadium, because the new one is also called just plain Yankee Stadium, and the old one will be gone soon. But don't do any renaming until the old one is officially gone, which would be whenever the 2009 season starts or whenever the old one is demolished, whichever comes first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever we call it now is a placeholder. I think that the better placeholder is "New Yankee Stadium", which should be retained until a permanent name for the future stadium is selected. The current Shea and Yankee Stadia were the notable exceptions to buck the corporate trend, and I find it very unlikely that the Yankees will not take the bucks that they could use to pay some free agents get back into the playoffs by selling the naming rights, even if it is more likely to include the words "Yankee" and "Stadium" somewhere within the new title. If a new name is chosen than we rename this article and keep Yankee Stadium to refer to the original structure. If the Yankees do decide to retain Yankee Stadium as the title for the facility now nearing completion, then we could consider renaming the article for the original to something like Yankee Stadium (1923). While having been there both before and after, I do agree that a big part of the soul of the original Yankee Stadium was lost in the 1970s reconstruction, I don't buy the post-renovation stadium as having a history different from the pre-renovation one. Alansohn (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The 2009 Stadium was, and for the next couple of years will be, generally called and thought of as "New Yankee Stadium", regardless of what happens to the naming rights. Although redirects can absorb much of the confusion, why not use the name that ordinary non-Wikipedians will first use to look up this uncompleted venue?
The House that Ruth Built was thought of as "Yankee Stadium" while still in use, and will still be thought of as "Yankee Stadium" as much as "Old Yankee Stadium" at least until the first pitch is thrown in the 2009 facility. (Or so I would think on the basis of parallel situations, living in Rhode Island and having never set foot in any Yankee stadium, imperial capital of Evil. ;-) ) —— Shakescene (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually concur with New Yankee Stadium. It was moved in good faith a few days ago to Yankee Stadium (2009) by a user who was being bold, and there were no objections here for the next few days. Then someoen reverted the move with no edit summary and no discussion, so I reverted it back. THat's a case of upholding the spirit of the guidelines even when one doesn't agree with the outcome. At this point now, the consensus is swinging back to New Yankee Stadium, and if it continues in the direction, we can move it back. - BillCJ (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Following the general concensus above, I've moved the article back to New Yankee Stadium. I also believe it is a more likely search name than Yankee Stadium (2009), and it has been in use for a while. By the time the new stadium opens in April, we should know what its permanent name will be, and can then act accordingly to rename this article and the one on the original staduim. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
To be objective and fair to everyone: although I'm part of the consensus, it's not that strong. Two or three editors wanted "Yankee Stadium (2009)" and four or five wanted "New Yankee Stadium". And one has to be careful in how one interprets silence (the absence of objections) — that was the good-faith assumption made by ViperSnake in his original switch from New to (2009). —— Shakescene (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Points understood, but not necessary in my case - I'm not a newbie, and I'm not stupid. I did consider what you mentioned before I reverted the move, but felt the revert was justified for all the reasons I gave, not just the consensus. I stand by it, but in the end, I'll respect the final consensus, whatever that ends up being. - BillCJ (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I was just noting that for the record, not to disagree with your actions †. Those same points would indeed tell a little more strongly against "Y.S. (2009)", since the apparent consensus for (2009), while assumed in perfectly good faith, seemed slightly weaker (although we don't vote by numbers) and bore the onus of showing why the status quo (the long-used name) should change.
† (In fact I welcome them, for basically the same reasons.) —— Shakescene (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
"New Yankee Stadium", or actually "the new Yankee Stadium" is what the club is calling it for now, not Yankee Stadium (2009), although it's not overly important, since "New Yankee Stadium" could simply redirect. However, now that it's "New Yankee Stadium" again, it should stay that way. No point in having a rename war going on when it's going to be just-plain "Yankee Stadium" at the start of next season. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The new Yankee Stadium (boldface) in introductory paragraph (lede)

I want to put the first four words (The new Yankee Stadium) in boldface, because it's more natural and also to distinguish the subject of this article. For the moment, Yankee Stadium is in boldface in the lede to Yankee Stadium (1923), so at least in purely theoretical terms one shouldn't boldface exactly the same title in this article.

User:Frank Anchor reverted my boldface of The new because he says that it's not part of the "OFFICIAL" title. And I do see his point (of not misleading readers into thinking that New is part of the official title), which is why I didn't capitalize "new". Perhaps italicizing "Yankee Stadium" might clarify the distinction better.

My own inclination is to use boldface to indicate and distinguish the subject of the article, which is not always identical to the subject's official title, e.g. New York City is not the official title of the The City of New York. [A purely hypothetical article about George Washington that began The first President of the United States would boldface The first, even though "first" isn't part of his title, because the article is about the first President not about the office of President.] At the moment, there are two Yankee Stadiums, one of which doesn't yet exist, so the boldface should distinguish between them.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting), WP:BOLDTITLE and Wikipedia:Lead section#Opening sentence don't provide unambiguous guidance.

For similar reasons, I want to change the title of the infobox (different from the infobox for Yankee Stadium).

Once either New Yankee Stadium opens or Old Yankee Stadium is demolished, much of this discussion will fortunately become moot.

What do others think, and how would they distinguish?

—— Shakescene (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with bold-facing all four words. It's worth pointing out that in ordinary writing on the Yankees website, "the new" is not capitalized [17] and in fact the letters mounted on the ballpark simply say "Yankee Stadium". However, it just looks better, and as you say, it won't last long anyway. In effect, there are two Yankee Stadiums at the moment. The best bet is for watchers of this page to monitor the Yanks site or other sources to see when they move their offices and start changing what they call it. I would guess that they will call it "New Yankee Stadium" until the old one is gone and then somewhat into the new season, but that the "New" part will quickly fade, for marketing reasons, i.e. they want to imply continuity with the old. Busch Stadium is probably a good parallel. It was being called "New Busch Stadium" until it opened, then it quickly became just plain "Busch Stadium", because the old one had already been demolished. Likewise with Comiskey Park. Likewise, for that matter, with "New Sportsman's Park" in St. Louis in 1893. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Field dimensions compared

Right now, the beginning of the Stadium Comparison section reads:

The field's dimensions will be identical to those at the 1923 Yankee Stadium (although not the same dimensions used when Yankee Stadium reopened in 1976).

But the corresponding figures in Yankee Stadium#Outfield dimensions are not for 1923 but 1988. And the The New York Yankees' own comparison table (footnoted at the bottom of our table) says that home plate is 72' 4" from the backstop while the Yankee Stadium article gives 82-84 feet throughout. Can someone sort out these numbers? Do we need to change the language in this article? —— Shakescene (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's obviously wrong, unless they plan to have centerfield 490 feet away, which I doubt. If the Yankees website discusses dimensions, either generally or specifically, just cite whatever they say, as you aren't likely to find a more authoritative source. It's also worth keeping in mind that the announced dimensions don't always square with what's posted on the walls. That's been a minor issue with several of the recently-built stadiums. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Clarification, just in case it's needed: Our Yankee Stadium#Outfield dimensions table gives 82-84 feet from home to the backstop for the 1923 facility; the Yankees give 72'4". For the new 2009 facility, however, the Yankees give 52'4" (20 feet shorter). At the moment, just about everything in the New Yankee Stadium#Stadium Comparison table comes from the Yankees' own comparison table, with metric equivalents and specific April days for Opening Day added. (The dimensions in Yankee Stadium#Outfield dimensions come, it says, from a variety of sources indicated in the first paragraph. Someone who has one of the standard reference books on Baseball Stadiums—often in libraries or remaindered at Borders, Amazon, Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble, etc.—could help by standardizing and verifying some of those impressionistic-looking figures.)
If no one can clarify any further, my inclination would be to change the parenthesis in the opening sentence of the section accordingly [e.g. "(as they stood in 1998-2008)"] and leave the current numbers in the Comparison Table as they are, at least until the first practice or the first pitch in the new Stadium. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "impressionistic", but I think the dimensions for the old ballpark are pretty much on the mark. For example, yes, it really was 490 feet to the deepest part of centerfield. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"Impressionistic" was probably not le mot juste; I meant that the sources were varied and perhaps incomplete. In the partial list of general sorts of sources given, some seemed sound but (for example) others were photographs of the numbers painted on the outfield walls, which you suggested might not always be accurate enough to rely on. But I'm very, very far from claiming any basic, let alone expert, knowledge of baseball history. Ken Burns' TV series, Doris Kearns Goodwin's Wait 'til Next Year and Dan O'Shaughnessy's When the Red Sox won the World Series is about as deep as I've ever gone. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, what's painted on the walls is as verifiable as it gets. Baseball guides for a current season have been known to get it wrong, as they are often removed from the subject and are simply reporting the original plans, not necessarily how they turned out. However, sometimes the guides are all the info there is for times past, and that's why Green Cathedrals and other sources have seemingly contradictory or weird info. The "classic" Yankee Stadium, though, is pretty solid: 301, 402, 415, 457, 461, 407, 367, 344, 296 were all posted on the walls and are verifiable in both contemporary baseball guides and photos from their frequent World Series appearances. In the earlier days, 490 was indeed posted on the wall in deep center. Where it gets tricky is prior to the 1920s or 1930s, i.e before teams started posting dimensions, and the guides are the only source. It was interest in the acceleration of home run hitting that drove posting the dimensions. There is no rule requiring posting of distances; in fact Baker Bowl never did, as that would have required that cash-strapped Phillies club to spend money on an extra gallon of paint. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The dimensions at the New Yankee Stadium won't match those of even the current one, or any one incarnation of Yankee Stadium in its history. According to Clem's Baseball diagrams (which are heavily researched and based on firsthand, secondhand, and team resources), the New Yankee Stadium will have a smoother outfield fence with no crags and reduced distances to the power alleys (392 where the current YS measures 399, and 372 where the current YS measures 385). So in all truth, the only thing the Yankees are keeping in common with the two stadiums is the foul pole distances, center field distance, and the name.

http://andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/YankeeStadium.gif http://andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/YankeeStadium_II.gif --TopGear (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That's still a pretty deep left center, 392, thought still way short of 457. Comerica Park had a 390-something power alley when they opened, and they added an inner fence some 20 feet closer. Yankee Stadium was like 430 to left center when it re-opened in 1976, but over time they cut it back to 399. It's a delicate balance. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the only source we should rely on for the dimensions is the Yankees. I take their word over this baseball blog. If the Yanks say the dimensions are going to be exactly the same, that's what they'll be. Locoman412 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

¶ Although I've done much of the editing in this particular section, I don't claim any erudition or intense interest in baseball (I'm a casual fan of the Red Sox born in London and living in Providence). I just want a clean, informative, accurate table and narrative that accord with the best facts available. I'm perfectly happy to go along with whatever expert consensus develops here.

[I will quibble that even the Yankees' table (which varies by ten feet from other stats for old Yankee Stadium in this regard) shows 72 feet 4" for Home Plate to Backstop in Old Y.S. and 52 feet 4" in New Y.S., so if that's a field dimension (I'd think so because it would affect passed balls and other catcher errors), it's not identical in the two stadia.]

At first blush, TopGear and BaseballBugs seem to have studied this more, but on the other hand, I don't know how deeply Andrew Clem studied this (his diagrams refer themselves to http://www.ballparks.com). This is probably one of those transient speculative disputes that will resolve itself after the first pitch in New Yankee Stadium. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, once the padding is put up on the walls (which should be within a month or two), they'll put the distances right on the walls. Then it'll all be straightened out. Locoman412 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just another little update here: I was checking out the new photos of the construction on Yankees.com and one of the captions for one of the photos said the new stadium will have identical field dimensions. Locoman412 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what their website says: [18] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I know; I was the one who added that chart to the page. I was just mentioning how the Yanks mentioned the field dimensions again since there was recently a little debate about the new field dimensions. :) Locoman412 (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

$100 million here, $100 million there,...

(See Wikiquote:Everett_Dirksen#Misattributed and Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen (R-Illinois), Senate Minority Leader, 1959-69.)

This article cites the projected construction budget as $1.6 billion, while Yankee Stadium in at least one place uses the figure $1.8 billion. Is this apparent discrepancy worth worrying about and reconciling, or should we wait until most of the costs have been incurred and accounted for? (Compared to the huge but vague numbers tossed around in the crash and bail-out of 2008, a fifth of a billion dollars almost looks like a trivial rounding error, no matter how many mortgages, pensions or election campaigns it could save.) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The new vs. The new, etc.

Is this stupid little pedantic debate going to go on all winter? Go to the Yankees official website and see what they are calling it, as that is the best reliable source you have. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Yankees' web site flips back and forth. As WP is descriptive, not prescriptive, just wait for the Spring, the weight of reliable sources will clearly fall one way or the other. In the meantime, leave it in the wrong version. Jd2718 (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If the Yankees' website is inconsistent, then how do you define what the "wrong" version is? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That was a message to everyone who is fighting. If it seems "wrong" to you, leave it alone. The real world will resolve this soon enough, no sense in conducting a debate with insufficient information. Jd2718 (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I've never tried to change it. Good luck convincing the current edit warriors on this bit of tedium. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Objections/Supporting Views

Could just be me, but doesn't there seem to be a bit of bias inserted into the "Public Opinion" section? The first paragraph of the "Supporting views" section has just as much information condemning the stadium as it does supporting it. It denotes the fact that the parkland is being replaced by "smaller, more scattered" parks as being a detriment. I also don't think that the "smaller than the $450 million the public is chipping in" belongs in "supporting views." Nor does the last sentence in that statement, in my opinion. Shamedog18 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Opening Date

The Yankees just announced that two exhibition games will be played against the Cubs in the beginning of April. Should we call April 3 the opening date or keep it as April 16? I added in a line about the two Cubs games, but left the official opening date as April 16. Locoman412 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the opening date to April 3. I decided to do this after I checked the page for Citizens Bank Park and saw they used the exhibition game played there as the opening date. Locoman412 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, an Opening Ceremony will be held tomorrow, April 2. I'm not yet sure what it will consist of. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

New Yankee Stadium → Yankee Stadium

If anyone here is a sysop can you delete the Yankee Stadium redirect to this article so that New Yankee Stadium can be moved there. I visited the ballpark yesterday and I'm happy to report that it is pretty much complete. I've moved the old stadium article to Old Yankee Stadium since the new park just about ready. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea at this time. Please see Talk:Old Yankee Stadium#Rename to "Old Yankee Stadium"? for a current discussion on renaming the articles. Moves of such important, high-traffic articles really need to be discussed first, and a consensus gained for moving them, and for the new names. Thanks. PS, I have requested that the move to Old Yankee Stadium be reverted. - BillCJ (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I was assuming this would be okay with everyone since the new park will open in less than 2 months. The Yankee staff has moved their offices into the new park already.
I wouldn't mind if it has to be reverted for now, though. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that we don't actually know yet how the Yankees organization will refer to the stadiums. Yankee Stadium (1923) is another option that has been considered. I've learned the hard way myself to check the talk pages before making a move. No worries! - BillCJ (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
According to this link, Yankees' officials will be given the keys to the new ballpark and begin operating from there on February 17. My opinion is that this is the date this article should be renamed to simply "Yankee Stadium" and the old stadium renamed to something else ("Old Yankee Stadium," "Yankee Stadium (1923)" or whatever the consensus is). Thoughts? Shamedog18 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I would certainly agree but other fans want it pointing to the old one. I don't think it's worth something edit warring over. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
A case can be made for Busch Stadium. The title points the the new stadium's article, not the old one. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really, as the previous stadium's name was always officially Busch Memorial Stadium, while the ballpark known as "Busch Stadium" from 1953 to 1966 is under Sportsman's Park. A better example would be Wembley Stadium and Wembley Stadium (1923). Personally, that style would be my preference if the Yankees organization does not adopt their own way of distinguishing the stadiums. - BillCJ (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You've got it. The way Wembley was handled is the perfect model for how Yankee Stadium should be handled, unless the Yankees come up with their own naming convention. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
As of right now, at their site on MLB.COM, the old park is "Yankee Stadium" and the new park is "New Yankee Stadium". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
However, they also have a little logo that says "Yankee Stadium 2009 Inaugural Season", and they have a banner with progressively larger lettering: "BE THERE FOR THE INAUGURAL SEASON (larger) AT THE NEW (larger still) YANKEE STADIUM". Also, in various places, "new" is now in lower case, as being descriptive rather than being part of the name. And of course the exterior simply says "Yankee Stadium". This all gives hints as to how they're going to do things. The "new" part will slowly be phased out. For now, though, the old Yankee Stadium is just plain "Yankee Stadium" in their writeups. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. What are the chances that the webwriter looked up the names in WP first? ;) - BillCJ (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jump-starting history

Over the last couple of days, some editor or editors have been rewriting this as if the first ball had already been thrown in Yankee Stadium (2009). While this will all be moot (one way or the other) in two months' time, I think this is a bit premature now considering all the history of this contentious naming issue, both at Talk:Yankee Stadium and here (e.g. directly above). I'm going to change the (harmless) "Old Yankee Stadium" links back to "Yankee Stadium", but I don't want to touch the other reversions that I think are (at least temporarily) necessary until we confirm or re-confirm a consensus here. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Public Opinion

Now that the Yankees have actually moved into the Stadium and the issue over its construction has become moot, I think it makes sense to pare down the "Public Opinion" section and perhaps fold it into the "History" section in a paragraph or two. As it presently exists in both form and content, the section relates to a debate over a proposed project or project under construction. It's conspicuously out of place in an article dealing with a finished structure. Think of how silly it would look if, in the article on the original Yankee Stadium, there was a nine paragraph stand-alone section on 1923 community attitudes toward the project. Of course, I'm not suggesting this information should be completely excised, only that it should be condensed into a paragraph or two and folded into the "History" section.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

this is an excellent point, some sourcing wouldn't hurt either.......

Tjrover (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)tjrover

Is "New" Yankee Stadium a Misnomer?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page at this time, per discussion below. We've got a rule of thumb at WP:RM: Try not to move a page from one controversial title to another one. This becomes true five-fold in a situation where the problem will literally go away soon. When they start playing in it, we'll note what people call it, and then follow sources, rather than trying to second-guess them. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Listing the new stadium as "New Yankee Stadium" is just plain silly and creates a misnomer out of thin air. The official name of the ballpark is simply "Yankee Stadium." That's the name on the entrance, that's the name above the bleachers in left-center, that's the name on the inaugural patch, and that's the name it's referred to by the team and media.

While it's true that there are occasional areas on the Yankee site where the new stadium is referred to as "New Yankee Stadium" (with a capital "N"), those are vestiges from when the new stadium page was originally created and they needed a colloquial way of distinguishing the stadium the Yankees were then playing in (at that time THE Yankee Stadium) from one that was not yet a reality. From the first press conference in 2005 announcing the plans for the new stadium, the Yankees made it clear that the new stadium would retain the same name [19]. Since the end of the 2008 season, the Yankees have taken care to use both a definite article ("the") and a lower-case "n" when referring to the new ballpark, as in "the new Yankee Stadium" [20][21][22].

Why this article continues to be titled "New Yankee Stadium" when that's not the official name is beyond me, but whatever the reason, the new season is right around the corner and from then on, use of "new" even as a descriptive ("the new Yankee Stadium") will cease and the new stadium will gradually become simply "Yankee Stadium" (per its official name) in the popular consciousness.

The convention to follow when two or more distinct and successive stadiums or arenas share the same name is simple: in situations where it's necessary to distinguish between the structures, use Roman numerals in parenthesis. This is how both the different Polo Grounds (Polo Grounds (I), Polo Grounds (II), Polo Grounds (III), Polo Grounds (IV)) and Madison Square Gardens are distinguished (MSG (I), MSG (II), MSG (III), MSG (IV)), and that's how these situations are usually handled in baseball encyclopedias, history books, media guides, etc. As for the proper title of the article, that obviously has to conform with Wikipedia convention, which I think stipulates that the official name be followed by the year of construction in parenthesis: i.e., Yankee Stadium (1923), Yankee Stadium (2009), etc.

In any event, something needs to be done about the references to "New Yankee Stadium," which, as I've noted, is a misnomer in that it is not the actual name of the stadium.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment at New York Yankees. "New Yankee Stadium" did not come out of "thin air", it's the term the Yankees themselves are using. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that PassionoftheDamon's point is that the Yankees are using "New Yankee Stadium" less and less, and will likely soon not be using it at all. I think he is right about that, and pretty soon the weight of the evidence will be to refer to the former stadium as [[Yankee Stadium (1923)]] and the now-current stadium as [[Yankee Stadium]] with [[Yankee Stadium (2009)]] being a redirect to [[Yankee Stadium]]. I, however, wouldn't mind if we waited at least until opening day, and perhaps later, to do so. I think it is better to be correct than quick. --rogerd (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what I've been saying also. Check the Yankees' page daily or weekly or whatever, and see what they're calling it. My guess is that the "new" will disappear soon after opening day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"New Yankee Stadium" did indeed come out of thin air in terms of being used as an official name. The Yankees were clear that the new stadium would be called, simply, "Yankee Stadium" since the first press conference announcing the project back in 2005. For a time, they did use "New Yankee Stadium" to refer to the new stadium, but that use was colloquial and due to the fact that the "original" Yankee Stadium was still in use by the Yankees at the time and thus THE "Yankee Stadium" in the public consciousness. If they had referred to it by its proper name -- Yankee Stadium -- most people would have assumed they were referring to the stadium then in operation. Of course, as the project progressed, the Yankees gradually transitioned from "New Yankee Stadium" to "the new Yankee Stadium" to now just "Yankee Stadium." Never was "New' included in the official name of the new building. Hence, to title it such is incorrect. Even while it was under construction, the proper convention should have been for the article on the new stadium to be titled "Yankee Stadium (2009)" (with the original listed as both "Yankee Stadium" and "Yankee Stadium (1923)"). In any event, now that the original stadium is closed and the Yankees have moved to the new stadium (they moved their offices in January and legally took possession five days ago), "Yankee Stadium" should now redirect here. As for "New Yankee Stadium," the article should be moved to "Yankee Stadium (2009)" (so that'll be its main title), and the outdated colloquialism/nickname/misnomer "New Yankee Stadium" should either be ditched or turned into a redirect.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
My old computer is having a problem with MLB.com, as it sometimes does. Today, right now, are they still calling it "new Yankee Stadium"? If so, then there's no problem with wikipedia calling it that. What you're saying as "should" instead should be "could". There are various approaches that "could" have been taken and "could" be taken. And until the Yankees themselves start calling the new one just plain "Yankee Stadium", then what we call it is driven by reliable sources and consensus. The most obvious solution is to have Yankee Stadium (1923) and just plain Yankee Stadium. We don't need Yankee Stadium (2009) because there will soon be only one Yankee Stadium, although I gather they haven't put the wrecking ball to it yet, which makes me wonder what's going on. Maybe there are issues with the new one? Maybe it's just logistics in cramped quarters? Obviously they didn't have that kind of problem at Shea, which is now totally taken down. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Yankees' own Yankee Stadium page is still very much using unqualified "Yankee Stadium" for the 1923-2008 House that Ruth Built, and variants of "the NEW Yankee Stadium", etc., for the 2009 facility. I know that web-sites can be notorious for lagging behind reality, but in this case, there's no cause for Wikipedia to be plus royaliste que le roi † or more Catholic than the Pope. If the Yankees' web site is still calling YS 1923 "Yankee Stadium", and avoiding calling YS 2009 "Yankee Stadium", then we shouldn't be calling the latter "Yankee Stadium" yet. Half the people searching for "Yankee Stadium" will still be looking for the 1923 facility, although there is an argument for ignoring the 1970's renovation and calling it (as most people already do) "Old Yankee Stadium", with "Yankee Stadium" being for the moment a disambiguation page. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
† [more royalist than the King]
Excellent. Or as we say in America, "Don't get ahead o' yerself." One key question: What's the French for "More evil than the Evil Empire"? >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
To answer your imperialist query, Bugs: I think that les mots justes—translated loosely from a universally-applicable German catch-phrase—would be plus brûlant que la Pierre, or "brenner than the Stein" ‡ —— Shakescene (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

‡   [as in That horrible family Stein:
There is Gert, there is Ep, there is Ein.
Gert writes punk;
Ep makes junk;
And nobody understands Ein !]

The Yankee web site is indeed notorious for slow updates (this is a site that's most recent wallpaper update is from the 2007 Playoffs and contains motifs with Clemens and Giambi [23]), so I don't think we should take the fact that there are still some references to the old stadium as "Yankee Stadium" (unqualified) as definitive. Regardless, the fact remains that the new building's official name is "Yankee Stadium." "New Yankee Stadium" might be suitable as a redirect, but not as an article title. It's like titling an article "A-Rod" instead of "Alex Rodriguez" or "The Linc" instead of "Lincoln Financial Field." (For the same reason, I object to the use of "Old Yankee Stadium," which the original stadium was never known as while in operation). Fixing the name here is long overdue: the old stadium closed in September, the Yankees moved their offices into the new stadium in late-January [24], and they official took possession last Tuesday (February 17). BTW, Bugs - don't read anything into the delayed demolition of the original stadium. There aren't any issues with the new stadium, which has been "substantially completed" (hence, the turning over of legal possession), it's just, as you guessed, the cramped quarters in the South Bronx have complicated the bidding process. The mayor's office is estimating demolition won't occur until the spring of 2010.-05:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
So it will sit there, abandoned, while the city tries to decide whether it can afford to demolish the old place. Let's hope it doesn't sit there for 5 years like some of the other old ballparks did - like derelicts (which, come to think of it, probably fits for the south Bronx). As for the name, go with what the reliable sources say. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
But aren't there reliable sources that have said that the stadium will be known simply as "Yankee Stadium"[25] when it is put into use, and aren't there reliable sources as well that the Yankees have officially moved into that stadium,[26] making it the current Yankee Stadium? Shamedog18 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The operative word there is "will be". When "will be" becomes "is", then wikipedia can reflect that usage. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, please read the entire comment before responding to it and not just the first line. The first source I gave reflects the "will be" and the 2nd one reflects "is." I don't necessarily disagree with your argument in whole, but your basis for it seems to be that the Yankees' official website is the only possible source to rely on here. I'm not sure that's the case. Shamedog18 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The article you cited is ambiguous on the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But the stadium itself has a sign saying "Yankee Stadium 02-17-2009" on it, not "New Yankee Stadium 02-17-2009" on it, as reflected in the article. If you were to send a piece of mail addressed to "Yankee Stadium," it is going to be sent to the new Yankee Stadium, not the old one. In my honest opinion, the Yankees website is probably not a great source at all in the sense not only that it refers to the stadium as "new Yankee Stadium" and "the new Yankee Stadium" and not "New Yankee Stadium," but also because the team is going to milk the word "new" for all it's worth as a means of promotion. The stadium is and will be called "Yankee Stadium," but it is still "new." Shamedog18 (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Then let's come to a decision about what to rename the articles. I say call them Yankee Stadium (1923) for the old one and just plain Yankee Stadium for the new one. Just as with Wembley Stadium. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that would probably be the best way to do it. Shamedog18 (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Great. Now all we need to do is wait for other interest parties (if any) to weigh in. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Then let's run a new move discussion for both proposed names, probably at Talk:Yankee Stadium, with a notice here. Previous move discussions have resulted in a consensus to wait until the exact names are clear. While there is nothing to prevent holding a new move discussion now, it should include the old stadiums' page, on which the current consesnus has been to wait. In any event, it is still possible that the Yankees may choose differnt names by opening day, but that does seem unlikely at this point. - BillCJ (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it should be posted on both pages, and maybe at WP:BASEBALL also. A different name? Like Steinbrenner Stadium? After they've already got "YANKEE STADIUM" up there? Not likely. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
AIG Arena? Lehman Brothers Field? Goldman Garden? Salomon Stadium? BankAmerica BallPark? Macomb's Memorial pay-to-playfield? (Of course, I should talk being in New England, where all the possible sponsors have been swallowed up: John Hancock Insurance, Fleet Financial, Bank of Boston, State Street Bank, Filene's, Gillette, ... —— Shakescene (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on moving Yankee Stadium is closed, however, this article can be moved to a more appropriate name, such as Yankee Stadium (2009), or any other better name. Normally move discussions are not re-opened until something changes or at least a month or two have gone by, and preferably longer. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Then leave it the way it is for now. There's no point in moving it more than once. And "new Yankee Stadium" is a term with reliable sources to back it up. A month from now is the start of the baseball season, by which time this issue will surely be settled in the media. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The "closed" discussion he is referring to was for an undiscussed move performed without prior discussion. There is nothing improper with proposing this move now. In the meantime, we shall endure another month of "'New' Yankee Stadium is a Misnomer" discussions by everyone and his brother! - BillCJ (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point in moving "New Yankee Stadium" to anything other than "Yankee Stadium" - at which point the current "Yankee Stadium" article would need to be renamed, to probably either "Yankee Stadium (1923)" or "Old Yankee Stadium". Whether that's done today or a month from now probably doesn't matter much. Maybe in the next 4 weeks we can actually arrive at a decision on what to call the old one, which seems to be the main sticking point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I won't be watching these pages to find out. - BillCJ (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't blame you. There is way too much angst over this relatively trivial matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Stadium

I thought that Steinbrenner's desire for a new stadium was when he saw the Jake. Where did they get the information of his desire since the '80's.--Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Steinbrenner on numerous occasions threatened to move to NJ or even Florida if he didn't get a stadium long before Jacobs Field was built. Steinbrenner wanted a new stadium because of the conditions in the South Bronx at the time (high crime, low income, etc.). The Yankees were not drawing well at the time. I don't know what Jacobs Field has to do with anything. Shamedog18 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I read it in a magazine commemorating the old Yankee Staduim (from newsday)that in 1998 before a playoff Steinbrenner looked around The Jake and said "We need a stadium just like it."--Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure he said it but that itself wasn't the basis for his idea of a new stadium. I would probably interpret that more as him saying "Well if and when we do get a stadium, I hope it turns out like this one." Shamedog18 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Steinbrenner's a Clevelander anyway, right? I'm surprised he didn't just buy the Jake and have it transported on one of his ships. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Title Change

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move, from New Yankee Stadium to Yankee Stadium and Yankee Stadium → Yankee Stadium (1923). But in the future, please use WP:RM or the Move tab - and not cut and paste, which just needs to be repaired to maintain the page history. Play ball! 199.125.109.88 (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of waiting to let someone do this properly (ie move) a user copied and redirected the article and talk pages, losing the edit history. Rather than try and revert it all it seemed safer to admin the move properly instead, despite there being a couple of weeks to opening day. --AlisonW (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral, pre-emptive move not supported by consensus

It can be plainly seen from the sections above and at what is now Talk:Yankee Stadium (1923) that there was no consensus about moving or renaming what were (Old) Yankee Stadium and New Yankee Stadium. But one user pre-emptively and unilaterally started an incomplete cut-and-paste that a couple of administrators have now had to spend an afternoon fixing and repairing.

While everyone agrees that a move should happen some time before Opening Day 2009, no one's yet presented evidence at either place that "Yankee Stadium" is now being used more for the 2009 facility than for the 1923 one.

While the balance of sentiment seemed to favor renaming (Old) Yankee Stadium as "Yankee Stadium (1923)" on the model of Wembley Stadium (1923), there didn't seem to me (who am in the minority that would prefer "Old Yankee Stadium") to have been a definite common conclusion about this either.

It should be enough to lure User:Baseball Bugs out of his very recent retirement.

I'm adding some sections below for comments.

—— Shakescene (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments about March 21st article moves

General discussion of March 21 moves

(for longer comments)

Support the March 21 moves

(indicate with a boldface Support or Qualified Support, etc., followed by 1-4 lines of reasoning.)

Support It's about time, the final game has been played at the Original Yankee Stadium meaning that park is closed and is soon to be demolished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernick1980 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Support We knew this was something to be done sometime before Opening Day but I felt this was the right time to make it. Arsenalric (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It was done very badly, and it was done a little too early, but it is clearly correct that it needed to be done at some point and a quick check of the NYY MLB site shows 'Yankee Stadium' is the correct name for the new venue [27]. --AlisonW (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support In less than two weeks, the first pitch will be thrown inside Yankee Stadium, albeit an exhibition. May I suggest an additional re-direct for the old Yankee Stadium? It could be called the "Original Yankee Stadium," even though I sense that would open another debate concerning its renovations in 1976. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: It was appropriate to move the article as soon as they transferred their offices. — $wgUser 16:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, but... If you take a look at the Stadium page on the Yankee's website, the sign on the new stadium calls it "Yankee Stadium". The text on the page shifts between "New Yankee Stadium" and "new Yankee Stadium". It appears that the new name will be "Yankee Stadium", without any qualifier. I think that the process should be to move the current "Yankee Stadium" article to "Yankee Stadium (1923)". Once that is done, all links to "Yankee Stadium" should be reviewed and changed to "Yankee Stadium (1923)" except for the rare exceptions that refer generically to where the team plays. For example, a hypothetical text in the Babe Ruth article that reads "Yankee Stadium became known as the 'House That Ruth Built'" should clearly link to "Yankee Stadium (1923)". Once that is complete, the "New Yankee Stadium" should be renamed to "Yankee Stadium", again, with all necessary cleanup addressed. If both steps are done simultaneously, there will be no opportunity for cleanup. I do support the change, but the ramifications need to be considered carefully. Alansohn (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

These sections were put here because the page moves have already been done. To clarify my point above, while the page moves were not handled well from a technical standpoint and there is still plenty of cleanup to do, the moves still needed to be done and were not premature insofar as the articles themselves are concerned. — $wgUser 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Support I think it was timely even though consensus wouldn't have been a bad idea. Personally, I prefer 'Old Yankee Stadium' over 'Yankee Stadium (1923)' because, and this is purely anecdotal, that's what people have begun calling it. Either way, we'll know soon enough. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the March 21 moves

(indicate with a boldface Oppose or Partly Oppose, etc., followed by 1-4 lines of reasoning.)

Oppose: Premature without the prior offering of some evidence that "Yankee Stadum" now refers to the new facility. I'm sure it now exists, but it hasn't yet been presented here. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

information NYY website with stadium plan is clear that 2009 is the "Yankees Stadium Inaugural Season", so unquestionably 'Yankee Stadium' now refers to the new facility so far as the Yankees are concerned. --AlisonW (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral and other opinions about the March 21 moves

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

There seem to be over a thousand Wikipedia links to "Yankee Stadium". Many of them (e.g. historical) refer to the 1923 facility; many will refer more (or exclusively) to the new one; and some could refer to either.

I think that each link will need to be examined by a human editor, rather than a robot, because no formula or algorithm will tell which is the best link.

Since the move and renaming was done before the links were all fixed, there are now also links that were originally to New Yankee Stadium that now refer to "Yankee Stadium". There are still about 70 links to "New Yankee Stadium"; as that just leads to a redirect to this page, I suggest leaving them alone for the moment to avoid even more confusion.

(In the case of my own table of parks and open space in The Bronx#Geography, I think it easier and clearer to leave New Yankee Stadium in the footnote to Macombs Dam Park.)

Does anyone have any suggestion or comments on how to proceed? Or do we just plough very slowly and cautiously ahead? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion.....temporarily move Yankee Stadium to Yankee Stadium (2009) and create a (temporary) disambiguation page pointing to the 1923 and 2009 articles. Then use Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups to point all of the linked pages to one or the other. When that is done, you can move the 2009 article back to the YS name. --rogerd (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There are several thousand. I have spent several hours sorting them out, and feel like I haven't made a dent in it. How 'bout a little help?? --rogerd (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty ignorant of Wikitechnology, but this can hardly be the first instance of such a situation, so I would guess that someone must already have created a robot to help do this kind of work. But of course this isn't a simple substitution (as in a one-stage renaming); it requires some discrimination. [Creating a disambiguation page for Greater New York and then redirecting several dozen links as appropriate was quite enough of a project for me, taking more than a couple of hours.] —— Shakescene (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, if we had done as I suggested above, it would be easier, but I suspect it is too late now and it must all be done manually. --rogerd (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


What should have been done is keep both away from Yankee Stadium (kept new as New Yankee Stadium and move the old to Old Yankee Stadium) and allowed time to fix all Yankee Stadium links to the old page... now we have lots of pages that link to Yankee Stadium when they mean to go to the old and others for the new... which is all screwed up..... (btw - usage of 'Old' is definitely starting to fit WP:Common (as opposed to using (1923) - just take a look at a press release from today about selling memorabilia [28]) JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
We can't "should have done" anything, so at this point the best bet might be to link everything to "old" and then hand-fix the relatively few that would be pointing to the "new". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... that is the way to go.... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why does the "What Links Here" for "Yankee Stadium" include articles like Babe Ruth which *don't* link there? I'd be happy to go through a list of pages that link to Yankee Stadium and update the ones that should be updated to point to Yankee Stadium (1923), but I'm not going to do it if my list-of-things-to-check includes hundreds of false positives. Edit: full list available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=281848590
--Mike Schiraldi (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the technology, but my guess is that "What Links Here" searches is for just the words "Yankee Stadium", whether those words stand alone or whether they're preceded by "New" or "Old", or succeeded by a year. And I can't think of a good filter off the top of my head. I suppose you could search for the modified terms and then somehow subtract them from the overall result.
The problem with the way the move was done, alluded to above, is that now that Yankee Stadium [rather than New Yankee Stadium or Yankee Stadium (2009)] refers to the 2009 facility, it's hard to know when a link to "Yankee Stadium" is a (correct) new one, a reviewed link that's OK, or a link that has yet to be reviewed. Renaming this article again (if only temporarily) so that we can see what work's been done and what still needs examination would be a huge drag, but then so is fixing the links blindly.
The only suggestion I can make is that correct links to the 2009 Stadium not go to Yankee Stadium but to New Yankee Stadium or Yankee Stadium (2009), from where they'll be correctly redirected, so that once a link's been looked at, it need not worry us again. Once all those thousand-odd links have been checked, then another run can much more simply change all the New Yankee Stadium and Yankee Stadium (2009) links back to Yankee Stadium. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't be sure, but having tried a while back to use Mike Schiraldi's list above, I think it was compiled from a regular search of "Yankee Stadium" which seems to generate about twice as many returns (many of them redundant) as just clicking "What Links Here" on this page. The latter should give Yankee Stadium links without the irrelevant ones to Yankee Stadium (1923), Old Yankee Stadium, New Yankee Stadium, etc. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of images and policy discourages galleries. so this section is　unnecessary. --KANESUE 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I never saw the 1923 Stadium and may never see the 2009 one, so a reasonable number of images can help me imagine what it looks like, and how all that other stuff fits into the physical structure. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Field Dimensions

This is a minor point, I realize, but it is not quite true that the dimensions are exactly the same as at Old Yankee Stadium when it closed in 2008. It is stated at least twice in the article that they are the same, but they are not. The left field line, straightaway center, and right field line are the same distances as they used to be, but the fences do not "arc" (I guess that is a good word to use) away from the foul lines as much as they did at the old park. They follow more of a straight line away from the foul lines, and the distance markers in the left and right field power alleys are actually closer to center field than they were at the old stadium. So while they say the same distances, they are not in the same location as they were before. It's difficult to find a source to back this up, as most stories repeat the "distances are the same" statement. But just look at an overhead comparison between the two parks, and you can tell the dimensions are not identical! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.50.55 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

True, they do not seem to be exactly the same, but the official released statement from the New York Yankees is that the field dimensions in the new stadium are the same. I do not have an actual source to back that up, but if you search you will easily be able to find one. In that regard, it should be mentioned that they are the same as the old stadium, or at least noted that "the organization has stated that the field dimensions are the same." Pl07442 (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It hinges on the power alleys, and if they prove to be different between the two ballparks, then the best thing is to simply delete anything that claims they're the same, because that would obviously be a falsehood even if a "reliable source" says otherwise. In fact, the Yankees are a primary source, not a secondary source, so they are arguably not "reliable", in that such a claim amounts to marketing rather than fact. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wind tunnel!! 207.210.134.83 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When the Yankees say "the dimensions are the same", what they might mean is that the MARKED dimensions are the same. Some unmarked dimensions are clearly different. Any good Yankees fan should easily be able to tell the difference between the right-field walls at each stadium. The wall at the new stadium is virtually straight. It was curved at the old stadium. Mr900 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what they mean. The user who posted the April 18th picture told me that it's obvious the outfield fence line is differently shaped than the old Stadium. The tricky part is that that's "original research". To state that in the article, a source is needed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue of the fence arc has received enough attention to warrant a mention/clarification in the article, I think: [29], [30]. Blogs such as those are hardly authoritative sources, sure, but even articles on the Yankees' official site are acknowledging now that the fence at the new park is straight, as opposed to the "gentle curve" of the old Stadium, and the new fence is closer in places in between the marked dimensions [31]. I think it would be appropriate to add something along the lines of, "The marked dimensions are the same as in the old facility: [list dimensions]. The fence at the new stadium, however, follows a straighter contour, making it closer in some unmarked areas of the gaps."-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
If you've got proper sources, go for it. The trend in recent years has been to bring the fences in. It would be ironic if the Yankees had to try to re-create "Death Valley". But regardless of what they might like to do, they're stuck with it for this year, as it's against the rules to reconfigure the dimensions in mid-season. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Old.
New.

Actually, if you put them side-by-side, at least from this angle, they really don't look all that different. What's needed is a straight-overhead view, like the one on the old. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that MLB had a rule that newly-constructed ballparks had to have certain minimum fence distances, something like 325 feet down the foul lines. (Remember how in the 1960s they wouldn't let Kansas City's owner remodel his park's fences to Yankee Stadium dimensions.) I knew that this restriction had been waived upon occasion, supposedly when geographical or jurisdictional factors were involved. What was the justification, other than nostalgia, for allowing shorter foul lines here? Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? WHPratt (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In theory, they do. In practice, the teams do pretty much what they want to. For example, the 318 in Baltimore and the 309 in San Francisco. And the remodeled Yankee Stadium in 1976 also violated that rule, which was passed in 1958 to prevent any more L.A. Coliseum fiascos. And I certainly do recall the Finley brouhaha. I think his attempt to make a mockery of the situation influenced the league's decision to tell him no. And besides, to do it right he would have had to move the left center field fence about 90 feet farther away. Not likely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Firsts?

How about this one? "First Yankees team to lose their debut at a new home since 1913"? They won their home openers in 1903 at Hilltop Park [32]; lost in 1913 at the Polo Grounds [33]; won in 1923 at Yankee Stadium [34]; won in 1974 at Shea Stadium [35]; won in 1976 at the refurbished Yankee Stadium [36]. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos?

I was kind of expecting to see some first-game photos here. Maybe not. The average wikipedian might not be up for spending 4 figures on a ticket. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Title

I'm sorry for being redundant but I believe my proposal is a new one. I don't believe that this particular stadium is the primary use of Yankee Stadium - the other one existed for 75 years; that's a lot of games, events, etc. Why not a Yankee Stadium (1923), a Yankee Stadium (2009), and a Yankee Stadium as a disambiguation? Grsz11 04:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the sources are now calling this one "Yankee Stadium". You will be amazed at how fast the old one slips into the distant past. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course they're calling it Yankee Stadium...that's the name. They call the other one Yankee Stadium too. Grsz11 13:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll generally find that they're calling the old one "old Yankee Stadium". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
We've already debated that. We did the same thing we did with the Wembley Stadium article. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First event...

It says The first event at the new Yankee Stadium was an exhibition game played on April 3, 2009, when the Yankees hosted one of two pre-season games against the Chicago Cubs.

the first public event at Yankee stadium was a team practice. They opened the gates up to the public for the first time on April 2, 2009.

Not sure if this matters, but thought it'll be more accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanbaofan (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're going to find in the history books that the first regular-season game will be considered the Stadium's true opening date. Everything prior is basically "testing". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Home runs in first few games

Why is there no mention of the "home run problem" that some were speculating about? There was a record amount of homers in the first 6 games or so. Or is it just attributed to bad pitching staffs? This should be mentioned in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.176.217 (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point in time, it's just speculation. Could be the right field wall. Could be the wind. Or, could be chance. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
While the place may not be a home run launch pad for its entire existance, the record number of home runs during the first week may be something to mention, being a record and all. oknazevad (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Launching pad?

Editorializing or speculating on the reasons for the home run barrage are not appropriate. There are any number of possible explanations, of which the specific field dimensions are only part of it:

  • Orientation of the Stadium with respect to wind currents
  • Different weather patterns this year
  • Height of the roof compared with the old
  • Openness of the new structure allowing more wind into the playing field area
  • Livelier baseballs
  • or - gasp - inferior pitching.

Now, if someone has undertaken a scientific study of the matter (and I expect they will, if this keeps up), then that could be something citable and usable in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Kansas City Has the Largest HD LCD Scoreboard in Baseball

Yankees new scoreboad dimensions is 101 By 59 - 5,959 sq feet. The new HD LCD scoreboard at Kauffman Stadium is 84' by 104' is 8,736 square feet. See: http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/10/03/kansas-city-royals-to-get-worlds-largest-hd-led-scoreboard/

The new LCD scoreboard for the Dallas Cowboys will be 72 feet high by 160 feet http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?&ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080416005327&newsLang=en

There is some disucssion about the 218 feet wide by only 37 feet high at the Tokyo Racecourse but at 8066 square feet, it is larger than the Yankees but smaller than KC. Americasroof (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Subheads

User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 in this edit removed several subheads from the article. I think that the article without subheads is extraordinarily difficult to read. You really have to dig into it to find anything. Plus removing the subheads takes away subsections that would might be linked from other articles (e.g., Monument Park, Yankees Museum). And for good measure if somebody is watching the article with regards to only a portion of the article, it alerts them to changes to that section. Americasroof (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I find your arguments rather persuasive, though I'm open to counter-arguments. There's the additional consideration that flagging subsections makes it easier to reshuffle (or delete) them if desirable. "Field Dimensions", for example, might go in several different places. I'll go back and do a comparison, but I'm inclined (with no more authority or seniority than any other rank-and-file editor) to revert to the status quo for the time being. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding subheads also complicates the Table of Contents tremendously. The article is not so complicated that it needs 8 extra subheadings to organize information. Nor is it recommended that you have subheadings for every paragraph. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the long subheadings list helps readability, but that's only because the individual paragraphs are too long and verbose (and sometimes meandering in topic). The first step is to remove references scattered throughout the article that compare aspects of the new stadium to the old one (dimensions, seating configuration, etc). There's a "Comparisons" section with a nice table -- addition of prose may be appropriate, but that should all be in one place. When the article is more concise, then the subheadings can go away; as the main headings and lead sentences of each paragraph are sufficient. [As an aside- the "construction gallery" should be deleted as well. The section, along with the tag that says it doesn't belong, has been there for quite some time]. -Sme3 (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Tangent: Monument Park with Yankees Museum?

Since we want to consolidate like with like, would it make sense to move Monument Park and the Yankees' Museum paragraphs next to each other somehow? They may be in different parts of the structure, but to most readers they serve similar purposes. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea - I'm not sure how I'd do it, though. The Museum seems better fit for the "Facilities and amenities" section, while Monument Park seems best fit for "Layout and design", since it's actually part of the playable ballpark interior. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that the logo represented is used by the Yankees as a general stadium logo, as its prominence at the top of the page would suggest. It seems to be reserved exclusively for Premium Seating materials - every other instance is the Inaugural Season logo. I suggest that the article would be improved by switching the placement of the two logos - thoughts? SixFourThree (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

Cost

Why was this stadium so much more costly than Citi Field? Is real estate that much more pricey in the Bronx than in Queens? 24.11.127.26 (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Supposedly, the limestone that Yankee Stadium is built with is extremely expensive and more than the materials used in other ballparks, like Citi Field. 146.95.136.192 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yankee_Stadium/Archive_1&oldid=1137336561"