Talk:Washington Park (baseball)

Baseball: Old-time Base Ball / Dodgers Low‑importance

	Baseball portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Old-time Base Ball task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Los Angeles Dodgers (assessed as Mid-importance).

Gowanus House[edit]

Is the "Gowanus House" mentioned in the article the same as the Old Stone House (Brooklyn)?

Yes. Baseball Bugs 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Park → Washington Park (baseball) — Based on the article traffic tool, Washington Park (disambiguation) should be at Washington Park. —TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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.

Support based on tool above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On Washington Park disambiguation, you will need the to-be-created-or-renamed-to Washington Park (Brooklyn), Washington Park (Indianapolis) and Washington Park (Los Angeles) or some such. I see that the latter already exists. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on the above and just the fact that there are many Washington Park-related pages on wikipedia. Vertigo700 (talk) 16:45, 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]
Oppose use of a tool which asserts its own beta-test status for these purposes; that's worse than google. The actual statistics are 997 for Washington Park, to 1149 for Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood); if such a self-referential metric is to be used at all (which I doubt), the proper treatment would be to dab both, probably as Washington Park, Chicago and Washington Park, Brooklyn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 11 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 ≠ wiser 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:11, 9 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?[edit]

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]