Talk:TELUS Field
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
TELUS Field 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. |
|||
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Edmonton may be able to help! |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Has anybody ever computed the Park Factor for Telus Field? It's longer to CF than any MLB ballpark except Minute Maid, and is roughly the same size as Coors (and being a kilometre closer to sea level). But I can't find anywhere that discusses whether its a pitchers park, or by how much.
[edit] Turf type
This needs to be updated. Before the Cracker Cats took up residence, the original artificial turf was replaced with the new-style (field-turfesque, but not field turf) turf.
Does anyone know exactly when the Astroturf was replaced with Field Turf? I don't really like it saying "recently replaced" since that's not as strong as stating the year it was replaced. --Nechevo (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Infield Turf
The reason for Telus Field having an artificial grass infield wasn't because the northern winter makes it too difficult to grow infield grass. John Deucy Park/Renfrew Park didn't have much problem growing it's infield grass. The reason I heard from Park officials/press statements was because the artificial turf was cheaper to maintain than real grass, and the turf allowed them to use a drainage system which drained water much quicker. I can't remember the exact stats but the new drainage system could drain the infield in an hour or two what would have taken at least a day for real greass. So the main reason for the articifical infield was the potential of fewer rainouts due to a much quicker draining infield. I'll try to find the time to track down some Trappers programs around the time Telus Field opened to see if they mentioned the reasoning behidn the artificial infield. Or perhaps i'll try to find Kowalchuk's E-mail and just ask him. Although i'm not sure how to cite either one. --Nechevo 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah so I'll taking it out.--TelusFielder
For that matter the idea that The Minnesota Twins asked for the carpet so that their prospects could get used to playing on Astroturf is clearly wrong since The Oakland A's and not the Twins were the Trappers parent club when Telus Field was made. --Nechevo 05:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason why I used "artificial turf" was because it's a generic term for any non-grass playing surface and is the standard way to refer to non-grass fields. Also by using the term artificial turf any statements about the turf can refer to both the original Astroturf and the new Fieldturf. Whereas saying "it" grammatically speaking means the rest of the paragraph is referring to the last turf type mentioned. But that's not my biggest worry about the changes. I wonder why you removed half of my sentence where I debunked the theory that the Minnesota Twins wanted the artificial turf. So the sentence now is both grammatically poor and wrong. I'm hoping that was just a mistake and you didn't intend to bring back the "Twins theory". So I will fix that sentence. If you want to return the "Twins Theory" to the article then I suggest you cite a reliable source to explain why the Minnesota Twins could affect the park design considering they didn't become affiliated with the Trappers until 6 years after the ballpark was built. --Nechevo (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok we need a picture. --TelusFielder
[edit] Question Regarding Editing choice
I am wondering why you replaced "To minimize damage to the infield when concerts are held at the stadium" with "and because there are many concerts being played at the stadium". I am not sure the new sentence is an improvement. It is less precise than the previous version. How many concerts would need to be played at Telus field in order for there to be considered "many concerts"? 2, 3 a year or more than 6? Just how many concerts are held at Telus Field every year? I don't recall any in the last few years so i'm not sure if "many concerts" is accurate. Also isn't the point of that sentence to explain infield turf is used because it's less likely to be damaged than grass would be for when concerts are played at Telus field? So I think the "to minimize damage to the infield..." sentence is better, but perhaps there are reasons for the new sentence that I am not seeing. --Nechevo (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As for me re-adding the sentence explaining why the "Minnesota Twins theory" was wrong. I did that in order to correct misinformation. Anyone who read the page when it had the bit stating the infield was artificial because the Twins wanted it that way was in, might not realize that what they read was wrong. By removing it anyone new to the page won't be reading the incorrect information, but someone returning to the page or someone who has heard the incorrect theory elsewhere are not having that bit of misinformation corrected. That said I do not object to removing it entirely, it does clutter up the page a bit and probably doesn't really need to be there. Perhaps it's good enough to have the discussion page mention that the "Twins Theory" was wrong. I just wanted to explain why I put that sentence back there. I guess the question is what is better for the article, to make it less cluttered but have the potential for people who received the wrong information not be corrected, or to ensure that this wikipage corrects the misinformation at the expense of cluttering the page up a bit? I believe there are at least 2 webpages out there that mention the "Twins Theory", one has an editor remark saying that it's not likely to be true, and the other still lists it as if it were true. It bugs me that some people might have the wrong information, especially since this Wiki had posted the wrong information for a long time. So I like the idea of this Wiki page explaining why the "Twins Theory" is wrong just to correct that mis-information. Also, down the road in the future, I don't want someone to re-post the "Twins Theory" as if it were fact just because they remember reading it somewhere. But I also see why it would make sense not to mention it at all. Perhaps it's good enough that the "Twins Theory" has been talked about and shown wrong in the discussion page. --Nechevo (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The more I look at the sentence "It is used for in infield for a variety of reasons" the more it bugs me. "in infield" is grammatically wrong, but removing the in or replacing "in" with "the" still leaves an awkward sentence. Also the sentence starts off in present tense but most of the reasons are in past tense. Since we have been going back and forth editing this section I think we should come to a consensus in the discussion page first then edit it to avoid more back and forth editing. So how about this? The section that starts off "It is used for in infield for a variety of reasons:" is replaced with: "The infield is artificial turf for a variety of reasons: The turf is less costly to maintain, the artificial surface allows for a better drainage system so the infield can return to a playable state quicker than a grass infield would, and to minimize damage to the infield when concerts are held at the stadium." I like this new version since I believe it is more professional looking than the previous versions and I think grammar issues are solved. The last bit about the concerts I discuss in the first paragraph in this section, so no need to repeat my opinions about it. --Nechevo (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
