Talk:Oriole Park at Camden Yards

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

Influence of OPACY[edit]

I'm getting a little wary of the list of parks that Camden Yards has influenced. The article states "The retro-style ballpark began a trend among other cities to construct more traditional, fan-friendly ballparks, including..." then proceeds to list practically every major league park built since 1994. Is there any proof that Oriole Park was the inspiration for all of these new parks? While I'd love for OPACY to get credit for it, I don't know if our ballpark was the inspiration for that list of about ten parks.

Now on a more scrutinous reading, the article technically doesn't say that Oriole Park *influenced* the new parks. It just says it started a trend for "traditional" and "fan-friendly" ballparks, then lists them. I think that list is getting too long, and it's tough to pick out just a few parks because nobody wants theirs left out. So maybe we can remove that list entirely. And if we decide to keep it, then we need references that all the listed parks are "traditional" and "fan-friendly."

Comments? Questions? Bitter invective? --PKirlin 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pkirlin! No bitter invective here. I actually JUST finished reading "Home of the Game: The Story of Camden Yards" by Thom Loverro (Taylor Publishing) ISBN 0878332227. On p 57, the first page of the chapter "Ancestors and Offspring", the author writes in 1999 that four have been built since Camden Yards, five more are on their way, and yet more are in the planning stages. Aside from the parks which obviously pre-date Camden Yards, there is one park of note NOT in the Camden Yards mode, and that is "New" Comisky Park (now U.S. Cellular Field, which was built at the same time, but has none of the Camden Yards-type traditional feel. Of course, in turn, Camden Yards has many predecessors: Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, Chicago's Wrigley Field, Boston's Fenway Park, and New York's Yankee Stadium. --Mmpartee 04:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Cell had its predecessors: Dodger Stadium, Anaheim Stadium and Royals Stadium had all been built along similar lines, as baseball-only facilities at a time when the other option was the multi-purpose concrete donut. In fact, Yankee Stadium and U.S. Cellular are not all that different in design. I wouldn't call Yankee Stadium a predecessor of OPACY at all. Wahkeenah 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is all well and good. I guess my point is that the sentence is getting too long and unwieldy, and doesn't cite any sources as to "fan-friendliness" or "traditionalness" of any of the parks. I think basically every new park built from now on that is baseball-only is going to get added to that sentence. I mean, have you seen plans for the Nationals' new ballpark? I think it's been said that it would look "futuristic" or something of that sort, with lots of glass. It doesn't inspire me as "traditional" -- OPACY is traditional because of the "Steel, rather than concrete trusses, an arched brick facade, a sun roof over the gentle slope of the upper deck, an asymmetrical playing field, and natural grass turf." Which of the parks mentioned in the article are like this? In truth, I'd rather just get rid of the list of parks completely and say something like "The retro-style ballpark began a trend among other cities to construct more traditional, fan-friendly ballparks." Am I being too harsh? I just don't want everyone and their kid brother adding their favorite ballpark to the list if it was built after 1992. --PKirlin 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh yeah, and I think I'm going to try to add in info from orioles.com: "Ebbets Field (Brooklyn), Shibe Park (Philadelphia), Fenway Park (Boston), Crosley Field (Cincinnati), Forbes Fields (Pittsburgh), Wrigley Field (Chicago), and The Polo Grounds (New York) were among the ballparks that served as powerful influences in the design of Oriole Park." (not verbatim, of course). --PKirlin 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main feature of the "retro" ballparks is that they are square instead of round, which puts more of the seats closer to the field. However, they still have some features the same as the donuts, in having a large middle tier for club boxes, and larger upper decks that are set back, and smaller lower decks. That's in sharp contrast to the old parks, which had a large lower deck, with posts in the way that supported a smaller upper deck. Wrigley is the perfect living example of that situation. The so-called "retro" ballparks are a synthesis of two styles. And you're right, you could probably reduce the references to both old and new to a single sentence. Maybe there should be a separate article about the architectural styles of the ballparks throughout history (or maybe there already is one?) Wahkeenah 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an idea for what could prove to be best and most useful for Wiki readers: I can totally get behind the simplification of that sentence to not list all the ballparks influenced right there, just stating to the effect that it sparked a new trend in ballpark design because of its innovate new (old) ideas, instant affinity with fans and financial success. And a new article about the overall history and trends of ballpark design sounds like a really good idea. I think it would also be a good idea to then link that statement to an ending-type section listing out the actual ballparks influenced so that the reader can then go check those out if desired. Sound good? --Mmpartee 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a shot. Wahkeenah 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Sun sign[edit]

The article states: The scoreboard advertises The Baltimore Sun at the top. The "H" in "The Sun" will flash to show a scoring decision of a hit and the "E" will flash to show an error. I have attended many games at Camden Yards and have never seen that sign flash to signal hits or errors. Last night, I made a point of watching for it, and despite there being 3 errors committed in that game, I did not observe any letters flashing in the Baltimore Sun sign. I would like to remove this sentence. Alternatively, if this is something that hapenned at one time and has since stopped, the sentence should be corrected accordingly. Tzadik 14:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't know the answer, but a possible explanation is that it might flash only if there is doubt as to whether the play was a hit or an error. If it was clearly an error, maybe they don't flash it. They certainly don't flash the H for every hit, only if it was a close call where it might be a hit or might be an error. --Mmpartee 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that I've seen it flash. I believe it only flashes when there is doubt as to whether the play might be scored as a hit or an error (those are really the only times I bother to look). --PKirlin 16:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pkirlin you have it right. When it is unclear whether a ball in play will be scored as a hit or an error the appropriate letter flashes to inform the fans of the call. Without the flashing letters there would be no good way to let the fans know of the official scorer's decision. In response to the others who said that they didn't notice it. During day games it is either not done or is very difficult to see. During night games though it is very clear when they flash the neon lights on and off.71.206.38.71 (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the ways that Camden Yards tries to emulate Ebbets Field a little bit. There was an ad for a beer called Schaefer's [1] and the "h" or the first "e" would light up depending on the call. It occurs to me that the scoreboard would probably flash an error in the line score if it was an error. At most ballparks that I know of, they always post H or E if there's any question at all about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked skyline[edit]

I guess I don't understand the need for the part about people being happy about urban revitalization in order to maintain a NPOV for the article. The article isn't taking a position on the issue of whether the Hilton should have been built or the skyline should or should not have been blocked, it's just reporting that many baseball fans at Camden Yards were disappointed by the changes in the view from the ballpark. I just don't think the part about urban revitalization is at all relevant to reporting on the changes in the skyline from the perspective of Camden Yards, it seems to be outside the scope of the segment and is out of place, IMO. 149.79.35.227 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's needed because it's controversial. Both sides, not just fan opinions, need to be presented for the reader to understand why the skyline was sacrificed. Otherwise, we'd have to create a fork to a separate article like "Skyline controversy at Oriole Park", or whatever, if they're seeking information about the "blocked skyline at the Baltimore Orioles' ballpark" controversy. Or we make the reader jump to the Hilton Baltimore article, but then the same argument could be made there in reverse, "why are all the baseball fan opinions mentioned in an article about a hotel?". Bottom line, we shouldn't make the reader go to two articles to read about both sides of one issue.
Also, the Baltimore Sun article cited as the source here interviewed people on both sides of the issue and reported their opinions. We cannot present just one viewpoint and not mention the contrary opinions voiced in the Sun article which expressed a favorable reaction to the hotel. It is just as relevant here as are the pro-and-con opinions regarding the controversial Male-Female statue at Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore), for example. JGHowes talk - 14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy, always controversy. Someone approved the construction of that hotel, it didn't appear out of thin air. Meanwhile, there's the controversy over the fact that there was no real need to replace Memorial Stadium - it was just something that somebody wanted to do... just like building that hotel. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On this subject. It says in the article that there are two buildings that block the skyline. As far as I know, as someone who works at the park, it's just the hilton. It's possible that the other building referenced in the article is the Zenith apartment building but really the Zenith isn't blocking anyone's view of anything. 71.206.38.71 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second building would have to be the warehouse. It, significantly more so then the Hilton, blocks more of the skyline then any other building around the ballpark. As for the whole skyline issue, yeah it should be brought up as it was both an issue with the warehouse, it was at first not going to be included in the stadium, as well as the Hilton, but the majority of the Hilton info should go to the Hilton page as it's design had to so with sight lines out of the stadium. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The warehouse deal was done on purpose, though, to add color or atmosphere to the place. Plus it made for convenient office space. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cited Baltimore Sun article specifically referred to the "Hilton Baltimore hotel north of the stadium occupying a two-city block area and a high-rise apartment complex" added in the last couple of years, not the B&O Warehouse beyond rightfield which predates the stadium. It seems the Sun was indeed referring to the Zenith.  JGHowes  talk 14:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a poor comparison, but like Niagara Falls, OPACY is a victim of its own success. But at least you can see the falls without seeing all the observation towers, if you try. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eutaw Street Homeruns[edit]

I think it would be great to have a list of the Eutaw Street Homeruns. No list seems to exist anywhere online. Anybody know of a list they can post? We could keep it updated throughout the season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ju19 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Eutaw Street Homeruns isn't provided by the club for free; the Orioles require that you buy a Media Guide for the comprehensive list [2]. Fortunately, one intrepid Orioles blogger took matters into his own hands and photographed every plaque on Eutaw Street [3] and then listed them on his blog [4]. The photographs do not include plaques referencing 2008 home runs (they had not been installed when photographs were taken) and the list does not include 2009 home runs. PhilR8 (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Ripken SR.[edit]

It is stated/implied that Cal Sr never went to another game after his firing, but his successor, Frank Robinson hired him as his third base coach. The part of the statement previously mentioned might need to be readdressed. 12.190.23.5 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames[edit]

There seems at present to be a little edit war among IPs who are not bothering to complete edit summaries. As far as I can see the argument involves nicknames for the ground which relate to supporters of another team. The nicknames are well-supported by the references so I have reverted the latest unexplained edit which removed them, but it may well be the case that the nicknames should appear in the article rather than being given undue prominence in the infobox. I would prefer if someone familiar with Baseball could consider this. If there are no replies here I will probably update the article myself in a few days. Unexplained removal of well-referenced content will be vandalism. Mirokado (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 attendance[edit]

Since I had to revert unexplained content removal I looked through the rest of the article and found that the reference for 2009 attendance had also been removed. I have also restored that text, but in so doing checked the reference and as far as I can tell the previous figure was incorrect so I have changed that too. That reference looks as if it only deals with the past two years, so may need further attention. A baseball expert should review this change please. Mirokado (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION, WIKIPEDIA VANDALS![edit]

Wikipedia is first and foremost a nonpartisan online encyclopedia. You can provide all the references in the world, but the fact is "Fenway Park South" and "Yankee Stadium South" are partisan nicknames which are disallowed on this website. The purpose of Wikipedia is to expand knowledge with purely objective information, not serve as a fan blog for any professional sports franchise. Because vandalism wastes the precious time of the legitimate contributors, any further offenses of this kind will be dealt with in swift and effective fashion. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

{{Edit semi-protected}} The subject's list of nicknames in the infobox has been vandalized at least three times in the last year. The act in question is the insertion of "Fenway South" and "Yankee Stadium South," names that are way too partisan for Wikipedia standards regardless of all the supporting references used for factual support. This problem is persistent in nature; I corrected it once, only to find out that other editors subsequently had to do the exact same thing. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Logan Talk Contributions 23:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fence heights?[edit]

If anyone knows how high the fences are in this outfield, please share that information with the rest of us.

Yugiohfan2010 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed changes[edit]

Hello, I am submitting an edit request for my client, the architect Janet Marie Smith. I have been compensated to help her write these edits and submit them here. Thank you for your help.PaaraSi (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Under Construction, after the second sentence of the fourth paragraph, please add for historical context and detail: Smith had been hired by Orioles President and CEO, Larry Lucchino, to represent the team as Orioles VP of Planning and Development in the design of the ballpark.[1] Lucchino’s goal was to create an “old fashioned ballpark with modern amenities."[2]
  • After the fifth paragraph, please add for more detail: In 2012, the Orioles renovated the unused area above the batter’s eye in center field, turning it into a roof deck and bar that seats 178 with a total capacity of 350 people.[3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaaraSi (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brown, Patricia Leigh (1992-03-05). "DESIGN NOTEBOOK; Field of Dreams Comes True In Baltimore". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-06-11.
  2. ^ Trister, Noah (2017-03-31). "THE CAMDEN EFFECT: At 25, ballpark's legacy is large in MLB". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2019-06-11.
  3. ^ Sandomir, Richard (2012-04-09). "Oriole Park at Camden Yards Keeps Up With the Times at Age 20". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-06-11.

Reply 19-JUL-2019[edit]

  Edit request partially implemented  

  1. Green tickY Smith had been hired by Orioles President and CEO, Larry Lucchino, to represent the team as Orioles VP of Planning and Development in the design of the ballpark. was implemented.
  2. Red XN Lucchino’s goal was to create an “old fashioned ballpark with modern amenities." was not implemented because the quote contained in that sentence is not an accurate quote.
  3. Red XN In 2012, the Orioles renovated the unused area above the batter’s eye in center field, turning it into a roof deck and bar that seats 178 with a total capacity of 350 people was not implemented because the sentence is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material, per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.

Regards,  Spintendo  00:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

protect the page from vandalists[edit]

Since this page has been attacked by Vandalists as of late, Can we Lock the page so only registered users can edit it? -Davidjr1030-Davidjr1030 (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium name[edit]

Oriole Park vs. Orioles Park??? Explain the singular, please. 108.28.187.43 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By no means unique. Yankee Stadium. Dodger Stadium. Angel Stadium. Tiger Stadium. (Not to mention that Oriole Park, singular, is the name of five previous stadiums in Baltimore.) 107.13.75.131 (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Baseball-only parks"[edit]

Before deleting the following sentence, I thought I'd see what other people think: "By the 2020 season, all of MLB's 30 teams played in baseball-only parks." I'm not sure "baseball-only parks" is an accurate phrase because some of the ballparks are not really "baseball-only" in the sense of being designed solely for baseball. The most obvious and most glaring example is, of course, Oakland, as their stadium is likely going to result in the franchise's departure for Las Vegas. That venue is "baseball-only" in the sense that the A's are the only team playing there, but it was designed and built during the "cookie-cutter" era and it hosted football teams for quite some time (the Raiders and the original USFL's Invaders). Toronto's and Anaheim's stadiums were likewise built as convertible venues, although neither hosts football these days (in Toronto's case, the stands were permanently locked into baseball configuration when the Argonauts moved to the new soccer stadium). I'm trying to figure out a good way to rephrase the sentence. Perhaps something like, "By the 2020 season, no MLB team shared a venue with an NFL team."? (Trying to be careful of wording because of things like Yankee Stadium hosting a soccer team even though it's very clearly designed first and foremost for baseball.) Anyone have any thoughts? 1995hoo (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major Construction Error[edit]

Multiple sections in the lower stadium seating in the right field area faced straight on. To watch the batter/pitcher action you would have to turn your head to the left approximately 45 degrees (from my personal recollection). Over the course of a game, this was very uncomfortable. The affected seats were fixed at some point, maybe only a few years after opening day. I have no recollection when.

I can't find any information about this on very Google searches. If someone could corroborate or provide an article in the Baltimore Sun, info about all this should be added to the wiki page. Asherkobin (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oriole_Park_at_Camden_Yards&oldid=1199319030"