Talk:Busch Stadium

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals (assessed as Top-importance).

Missouri Mid‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

St. Louis Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis (Sports), a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.St. LouisWikipedia:WikiProject St. LouisTemplate:WikiProject St. LouisSt. Louis
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Event Venues (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues

Pictures?

To me, the way these pictures are included seems sloppy. What do you think? Clarkefreak ∞ 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you from improving their presentation? Wahkeenah 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I put them in a gallery. Better? --SFoskett 17:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo!

Just put in a bunch of work on the page. Moved "construction" under a "history" heading and also threw in the "funding" background information under that, too. Tweaked the infobox a lot and checked wording and redid the introduction paragraph. Haven't done the construction and the photo gallery page, though. I think the photos look tacky. Perhaps just the three at the bottom showing progress are okay, but the others can go, I think. Discuss, please. —Mike Tigas 03:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three showing the progress from the Arch are nifty. You need a fourth, showing the finished product, or as near-finished as it may be at present. Wahkeenah 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

375 vs. 390 power alleys

Mystery solved... I think. Putting the ruler to a printout of the official seating chart [1], I come up with the following dimensions, as the posted dimensions appear to be in proper proportion to each other:

LF - posted as 336 ft
LF jog - approx. 350 ft
LCF - posted as 375 ft
LCF corner - approx. 390 ft
CF - posted as 400 ft
RCF corner - approx. 390 ft
RCF - posted as 375 ft
RF jog - approx. 350
RF - posted as 335 ft

I saw another reference that said CF was 398. The corners on either side of CF appear to be just a few feet deeper than straightaway. I'm guessing the corners are 400 and the true CF distance is 398, posted as 400. Whatever. Wahkeenah 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

I'd like to know what the purpose of the ratings is. Everyone talks about how wonderful Wrigley Field is, for example. While I love Wrigley, it has many obstructed views and the parking is absurd. Also, a Sports Illustrated poll among players a few years back said Wrigley had among the worst quality playing fields. Wahkeenah 23:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC) And a 5 for Fenway Park? Gimme a break! Many of the seats are behind posts or facing the outfield wall. This ratings stuff is subjective and bogus. Wahkeenah 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I initially posted the ratings thinking that many people would post many ratings so that we could get more opinions on the parks. I just thought it would be a cool thing and it would interest some people.--J3wishVulcan 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called point-of-view, and it doesn't belong here. Describing the park is fair. Rating it is subjective, even if someone else did it. Wahkeenah 23:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the music CDs have a rating as part of the infobox. That is point-of-view, but it is also accepted. As long as the reviews are done by PROFESSIONALS, I see no problem with it.--J3wishVulcan 00:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis of the ballpark ratings? Without having to go to a spamlink to find out, that is. Wahkeenah 00:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How else do you expect to find out then my going to the website. For an example of a CD rating in the infobox, check out The People's Champ.

Do you suggest putting a space for a 'rating' in the infobox like that?--J3wishVulcan 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think it belongs, no matter who wrote it. But I'm not interested in it enough to start an Edit Jihad. Wahkeenah 01:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its The Sound of Revenge that has a professional rating in the infobox, not the other one.--J3wishVulcan 01:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

"The Stadium was financed through private bonds, bank loans, a long-term loan from St. Louis County, and money from the team owners."

Is this correct? The ballpark isn't even in St. Louis County... --Xyzzyva 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the specifics, but it most likely is correct. The city of St. Louis relies on St. Louis County funding streams for a variety of things, baseball stadiums included. Largely has to do with the city itself making up such a small portion of the metro area. --Millbrooky 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the City of St. Louis Development page, the County is paying $2M a year for 30 years [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyrkrakr (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fence heights?

Can someone please post the heights of the outfield fences?

Yugiohfan2010 (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Busch Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the infobox?

The infobox appears to be all messed up. Can someone fix it? Chris6d (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]