Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
 |
The article on Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the USA and Canada task force. |
Contents |
[edit] Armed Forces Field at RFK Stadium: Did this ever happen?
I seem to recall that this proposed renaming never happened -- it was felt to be a poor use of Pentagon cash. Surely someone in DC can confirm or deny whether the renaming in fact went through. --Jfruh 16:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It hasn't been renamed as of yet. I believe the military option is out, and the last i can recall was that a local financial services company, i can't recall the name, was in the for the bidding, but that was maybe a month ago. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 18:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the weekly joke column in "Sports Illustrated", they said naming it for the Armed Forces was a bad idea because then President Bush would only come to the games once a month. Wahkeenah 22:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't want the stadium to be named "Armed Forces Field." It sounds... tacky. -- Win777 16:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Tackier than "U.S. Cellular Field"??? Wahkeenah 22:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Photos
Why do people keep putting that blurry, distorted photo instead of the clearer, better, baseball photo? User:Getreprimanded 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- It ought to be dumped. Its color is nauseating (although appropriately fitting for many Senators teams of the past). Wahkeenah 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Which Photo?
We should vote on wheter we should put the D.C. United or Washington Nationals picture, or if we can find another picture for it. ColumbusCrew29 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Some things shouldn't be put to a vote. Anyone who is looking at the two photos objectively can recognize that the baseball one is a higher quality, clearer picture. If there were two pictures of equal quality, then I could see us having a reasonable discussion about this. But these pictures aren't equal quality. If someone wants to contribute a high-quality picture of a D.C. United game, then it would make sense to talk about which one should be at the top. —Cleared as filed. 02:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I took the D.C. United photo and agree that it is technically inferior and shouldn't be used when a better photo is available. (I took it with a cell phone.) I do think there should be an exterior shot of the stadium as the exterior is much more interesting architectually. In defense of my photo, I don't find the colors "nauseating". I think it's vivid and also like the action and the excitement of the crowd. The other photo makes baseball seem even more boring than it actually is. Most of the spectators aren't even looking at the game. --
D.M. (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- My complaints were about the colors of the seats, not about your photo. For a cellphone photo, it's excellent. And I do think an exterior shot would be nice. If it looks anything like when it was built, it has nice lines to it. Wahkeenah 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I took the D.C. United photo and agree that it is technically inferior and shouldn't be used when a better photo is available. (I took it with a cell phone.) I do think there should be an exterior shot of the stadium as the exterior is much more interesting architectually. In defense of my photo, I don't find the colors "nauseating". I think it's vivid and also like the action and the excitement of the crowd. The other photo makes baseball seem even more boring than it actually is. Most of the spectators aren't even looking at the game. --
[edit] Something's Not Right...
One of the memorable moments states...
- June 18, 2006 - Washington Nationals defeat the New York Yankees on Ryan Zimmerman's walk-off home run, in front of a sellout crowd 45,157 fans, the largest single-game baseball crowd in RFK history.
However, the moment just prior to that says...
- April 14, 2005 - Washington Nationals defeat the Arizona Diamondbacks 5-3, before a crowd of 45,596, to win their first home opener in Washington, D.C. They go on to sweep the 3-game series.
It would seem like the game on April 14, 2005 had "the largest single-game baseball crowd in RFK history". Where's the mistake? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Future of RFK Stadium after DC United and Nationals Leave
I've been reading up on this and it appears that there are two different options that are possible: Either the Redskins build a new stadium at the site or the current stadium will be demolished and the site will revert back to the federal government. The article, D.C.'s next waterfront drama in the Washington Business Journal discusses this. The National Capital Planning Commision is already studying what to do with the site should it revert back to federal control as explained on this website and their draft report. I think some of this should be expounded upon in the article as it seems to only give a mention of the proposal to build a new stadium for the Redskins on the site. Mecaterpillar 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] When not in use
Since the Washington Nationals are moving to a new facility, what will become of the pres box that is/was used for baseball?--BigMac1212 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Crystal ball
Patience, Grasshopper. Until the first game is played in the new one, and unless the old one has been demolished, you can't definitively say they're done with the old one. That violates the wikipedia "crystal ball" rule. For all you know, there could be a leaky pipe that floods the stadium, undermines the infrastructure, and makes it fall into the river. Oops. Not likely, but wikipedia is not in the business of predicting the future. So when Nationals Park actually has its first game, you can close the book on this one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DC United in the History section
Hi.
At present, the stadium's history section does not include much detail concerning the tenure of DC United at RFK - despite the relatively high level of success they have had compared to other recent tenants at the stadium.
Is there anyone more familiar with United's history who could consider adding a paragraph's owrth of information about how RFK has been home for the team? --Nerroth (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
