This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
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.
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Modify There are at least 3 different cities that have had professional baseball parks named "Washington Park", so "Washington Park (baseball)" would be a disambiguation page itself. Better it should be like
Recreation Park, where each city name is parenthesized.
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Support -- the ballpark isn't the most popular article on the site with Washington Park in the title, so it makes sense to move disambig page there. Will leave the naming of the individual ballpark articles to those most familiar with that area. --
MattWright (
talk)
06:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. The article traffic tool has produced some ludicrous move proposals, and so its "evidence" should be disregarded.
Andrewa (
talk)
23:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, for now. Using wikipedia page views to determine primary topic is problematically solipsistic. At the very least there needs to be a wider discussion about the appropriateness of using the tool for that purpose.
older ≠
wiser19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)reply
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 coords?
Shouldn't the coordinates given in the table reflect the portion of the wall that still stands - which would be 40°40′34.26″N 73°59′13.03″W? People may go to the listed coords looking for the wall, and they'll see no such thing. I'll check back in a couple of weeks and make the change unless there are objections.
Elsquared (
talk)
08:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply