Jump to content

Talk:Multi-purpose stadium

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mc134 (talk | contribs) at 07:01, 27 June 2010 (RFK Stadium). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBaseball Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEvent Venues (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

RFK Stadium

Is it my imagination, or is RFK Stadium too old to be a cookie-cutter? Just asking. --Carn29 13:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No because it was the stadium that led the "revolution" of multi-purpose stadiums. {..::M@®©™ ::..} (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seating chart

A diagram showing the typical seating chart/field layout would be useful to illustrate the deficiency of these stadiums in providing good views of various sports, as mentioned in the article. Pimlottc 07:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFK

RFK is actually a pretty poor example of a cookie cutter stadium. 1). It did not have a fixed-radius upper deck like the others, resulting in a unique roof line. 2). its upper deck utilized the same technology as the renovated Yankee Stadium, with cables in the concrete to allow it to cantilever a remarkable distance over the lower deck. 3). It opened with, and always had, a grass field. 4).

Riverfront, The Vet and Three Rivers are the prototypical cookie cutters. Also, the new retro parks could easily be considered a new version of the cookie cutters, since they all use the same fundamental elements. Laotzu41 04:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research and citations

This article lumps together a number of different buildings with the intent of disparaging the design or purpose. Even the title violates NPOV. The article has been tagged for references since July. Group29 18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Metrodome is not one of the "ashtray" parks disparaged by this article. It is a football stadium that converts into a baseball stadium, the complete opposite of Candlestick Park or Anaheim Stadium. It is a domed stadium. The only category it fits into would be multi-purpose stadiums, which should not be covered by this original research article . Group29 (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metrodome, Dolphin Stadium, (now SunLife Stadium, but i never liked calling the stadium by its naming rights with the exception of Pro Player Park/Stadium.) are only convertable stadiums. Candlestick Park and Angel Stadium really can't be mensioned either, since they arent cirucular like the traditional cookie cutter and because they were converted back or to a one sport stadium Mc134 (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cfd

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--D. Monack | talk 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the category discussion. Category renamed to Category:Multi-purpose stadiums Group29 (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Multi-purpose stadiums

I believe Multi-purpose stadiums to be a legitimate category denoting stadiums that can be used for American football and baseball. It could also be similar or synonymous with Multi-purpose arenas to denote those that can be used for hockey and basketball. As a side note, all stadiums and arenas host concerts, tractor pulls, religious revivals or trade shows, so it could be argued that ALL stadiums could fall into the Multi-purpose bucket. Group29 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Multi-Use may be a better use for situations like that. Good point though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc134 (talkcontribs) 04:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]