Talk:Wrigley Field

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nickk8020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Works Cited

There are little, if any references or works cited on this page. Where did all this history come from, and some of it is a bit questionable. This article needs attention. Charlesblack 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Define the questionable stuff. Wahkeenah 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Questionable?

You probably just don't know enough about sports. The called shot and everything else mentioned really did take place at Wrigley. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.115.16.212 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Needs Work

Pretty thorough---Might be good to get a bit about how Wrigley / The Cubs rent out additional seats to the businesses out on Waveland/Sheffield. --Muaddib 00:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The photos at the top of this page make it render very badly. Text is either cramped into a small (<100px!) column or pushed down the page. Perhaps the two smaller images could be used later in the article? --dahamsta 22:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bartman

The Bartman incident should be included in the timeline. We need to make shure we keep a NPOV on it though. Ace-o-aces 18:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The result of the ball not being caught was a walk. The real problem was the devastating error made by Alex Gonzalez on a double play ball. The Bartman thing was a media invention. Wahkeenah 19:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

not to be too technical...

> Wrigley Field sits on an asymmetric block bounded by Clark and Addison Streets, Waveland and Sheffield Avenues

...but any casual observer will notice that Wrigley is bound by a five sided block. Clark only borders the stadium directly behind home plate. Seminary Avenue forms the majority of the west-side boundary, which now contains parkings spaces. Despite the "private" look of the parking lot, and according to my sources, Seminary Avenue is still in public right-of-way. J. Crocker 20:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Seminary is de facto part of the Wrigley property. However, also technically speaking, the last I knew the aforesaid Wrigley "property" was still being leased by the Cubs from the city of Chicago, so in essense the street and the land are city-owned... so my guess would be that the Cubs and the city worked out some deal long ago on this portion of Seminary. I recall reading an article kind of raising that same question. It occurs to me that if one were really desparate, one could call the Cubs and find out. d:) Wahkeenah 23:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. Basically, the Cubs have treated that stretch of road as if they owned it, but they don't. It's technically a street. However, according to this article [1] and others I've seen, the Cubs are still working on a deal (from at least 2 years ago) to officially close that portion of Seminary as part of their building improvement plans. That plan includes bleacher expansion, and sadly, it sounds like the old outer wall will be gone, one of the last exterior remnants of the original 1914 structure. I'm thinking to revise the description to take these facts into account. Unless you beat me to it. d:) Wahkeenah 00:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that they THOUGHT they owned that street, but only recently discovered their was an oversight decades ago when the land was bought. Ace-o-aces 01:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

From time to time on maps, I've seen Seminary extended all the way to Clark. But I don't think it was ever a properly developed thoroughfare, as there are enough streets coming together at the intersection as it is. The intersection has lights, of course, but none of them regulates that little extension of Seminary, which actually opens onto Clark maybe 150 feet north of the Clark-Addison corner. In essense, it's more of an alley than a street. The one article I saw said the Cubs claimed "squatter's rights" to the land because they've used it for so long and nobody else claimed it. I recall when I was a kid that there was actually a railroad spur running down that section of street, since paved over, but a remnant from when that little wedge of land just west of it held the Coal-and-Coke processing company visible on photos taken during the 1930s, 40s and 50s. In fact, an aerial photo of the 1945 Series shows three tracks running down the middle of that street next to Wrigley. So it was never much of a practical street for driving. Wahkeenah 01:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep, you are correct. Seminary once contained streetcar rail tracks. South of Addison, the tracks made a gentle curve to the west and met Lakewood Av. around Wellington. North of Addison the tracks ran along Seminary Av. and then ran between the current Red Line tracks and Graceland Cemetery, joining the main CTA viaduct at the Wilson Yard. Between Montrose and Wilson, the concrete viaduct that once carried this line is still present, although abandoned and in bad condition. It will probably be dismantled in the coming years. Also of interest is the slight jog in Lakewood Av. at Belmont. This is an artifact of the streetcar rail line's gentle curve. This is probably related more to railfan stuff, but the main point is: Seminary Av. is NOT an alley. J. Crocker 15:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The other day I attempted to contact the Cubs about the issue of what land (if any) they own, and was put off. They probably assumed I was a troublemaker. 0:) Wahkeenah 17:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this issue is debatable. Therefore I would like to interview both sides if possible. Jamie M

• Good luck. Wahkeenah 12:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Billy Williams could not have saved Ken Holtzman's 1969 no-hitter by catching Hank Aaron's fly ball in "the basket," because "the basket" wasn't installed until 1970 or 1971, after a particularly rowdy opening day.

Trivia section

I changed what User:CubsFan put in the trivia section as he is mistaken.

1. The Chicago Cubs are the only team to play at the same stadium since the team's inception., Not true the Florida Marlins, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, and Arizona Diamondbacks have only had one home for their respective franchises as well, those being Dolphins Stadium, Tropicana Field, and Chase Field respectively. Becides that the cubes were founed in 1870, didn't move to Wrigley untill 1916 a year after Wrigley opened and previosuly played at West Side Park before comimg to the friendly confines, so they have hade more then one home in their history as well.
2. Wrigley Field and Fenway Park are the only two ballparks that use manual scoreboards. Not true, the out of town scoreboard at Coors Field is also manual.

I'll go ahead and make the appropate changes.

--Boothy443 | comhrá 07:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you really meant to say "cubes". One never knows what derisive nickname someone will come up with for the Cubs. My own father used to call them the "Dubs" or the "Scrubs". I'm guessing the "Cubs fan" got the Cubs and Red Sox "inception" mixed up with his own. To him, it probably seems like they've always been there. In fact, the Cubs had five other homes prior to Wrigley, and the Red Sox had another ballpark prior to Fenway. Also, a number of these "retro" ballparks have scoreboards that are in part manually operated. It's a feature that the designers think is cute... but in fact, it makes the board easier to read on a sunny day. That was a problem with the old White Sox board at the old Comiskey. It was mostly if not all electronic and its little lights could be very hard to read during a day game. Wrigley had no such problem. In contrast, they had to put floodlights on it so the fans could read it during a night game. There's no perfect solution. d:) Wahkeenah 12:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Why must we rip on User:CubsFan? It seems like his edits were in good faith, just erroneous. He's a newbie, revert his edits but give him a break. Viva la User:CubsFan!--CrazyTalk 17:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As a fellow Cubs fan, it is "all in the family". But those Cardinals fans better not rip on him. >:) Wahkeenah 17:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

For number 2, he obviously meant the main scoreboard. Many many many stadiums use manual scoreboards for out-of-town information, so simply adding the term "main scoreboard" or something to the effect of that would have been better than completely removing what he put in. Tflynn17 16:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. However, this was almost a year ago, so I wouldn't count on him putting his edits back. Wahkeenah 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Buffett

This item is confusing. Many musicians have performed at Wrigley, what about the seventh-inning stretch? The Star-Spangled Banner? Not to mention pre-game hacks who performed there as well, among others, Jimmy Buffett.

• I think they mean he's the first to perform a concert there. I can't say for sure. Whoever posted that originally needs to clarify. Wahkeenah 17:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't post this information, however, I do believe he was the first to be allowed to play a concert at wrigley field. --Lmusielak (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

bleacher bums

What about adding a reference to the Organic Theatre/Joe Mantegna play "Bleacher Bums," set in Wrigley bleachers? (More recently made into a movie....)

Lights Now

I was looking at the part on lights at Wrigley Field. It ends with info on the first night game. What's the situation on night games now? I'd add something, but I don't know what it is. All I know is they seem to always play a day game when they're home.--Attitude2000 23:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• More info added. Wahkeenah 04:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In a typical year- how many night games at Home do the Cubs play?( of the 81 hoem game) Over the course of the year,is there frequentlya a change of time of day from day to night between originally planned schedule and what is actually played? Add to above - MLB has varied-But some push think that for final game of a series, a day game is beneficail to the team if travelling the next day and a game that same day. Wfoj3 (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ronnie woo-woo

Should Ronnie be mentioned in this article? Ace-o-aces 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's a tough call. He's a fan, and there are millions of fans, but he's unique, albeit a tad irritating after awhile. Also, is he still a presence at Wrigley, or has he found gainful employment by now? Wahkeenah 03:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Last I heard he was still doing odd jobs around Wriglyville. I saw him outside the park after they announced the new mannager of the Cubs, (and somebody got him started with the "woo-cubs-woo" thing), so yeah, he's still around. Ace-o-aces 06:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe he should be mentioned. What could it hurt? Wahkeenah 06:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Football at Wrigley

Any images available where the Bears played at Wrigley? KyuuA4

• I have one. I'd have to make a Fair Use case for it. Wahkeenah 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Done. Wahkeenah 05:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the Bears play at Wrigley in the late 70s or early 80s when Soldier Field was being renovated - I believe it was at least one season? Were the games played during that time added to the regular season total? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMonurB (talk • contribs) 11:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they played at the stadium at the University of Illinois, in Champaign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be great to see a shot of the scoreboard in its football configuration. They showed quarter-by-quarter scores for all the NFL teams, some of them on the "AMERICAN" side. They had special number slats for football so they could show numbers like "14", "20" and "21" (much like the slender "10" you sometimes see on the baseball scoreboard) in one slot representing a quarter. They were spaced out to use only every other slot. (One would think that they'd simply use two inning columns per quarter to have two digits, but they didn't!) BALL and STRIKE were replaced by DOWN and YARDS TO GO or whatever. WHPratt (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"The Den"??

Who on earth calls this ballpark "The Den"? I've never in my 21 years of living in Chicago heard the Friendly Confines referred to by that nickname. It honestly sounds like somebody made it up. --gavindow 05:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree, and have zapped it. I'm not sure all that many people call it "Cubs Park" anymore, either, but that was once its "official" name, and the WGN trafficopter guys used to call it that from time to time, so it makes more sense. Wahkeenah 05:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

LCS home field advantage

From time to time, someone tries to post the rumor that the Cubs had to relinquish home field advantage in the 1984 NLCS due to the lack of lights. That is not true. During 1969-1984, the LCS patterns were the first 2 games in one city and the last 3 games, as needed, in the other city. East vs. West home field advantage alternated between divisions (and leagues) from one year to the next and the respective teams' records were not taken into consideration. That approach was consistent with the World Series, a 2-3-2 pattern with home field alternating between leagues (until 2003). 1984 was the last year for the 2-3 pattern in the LCS. Starting in 1985, the LCS went from a best-3-of-5 format to a best-4-of-7 format, and adopted the 2-3-2 pattern of the World Series. There was talk in 1985 that if the Cubs made the post-season, the league might insist that they play some or all home games in another ballpark, i.e. one with lights. They failed to make the post-season, so the issue became moot. When the Cubs finally got permission to build lights in 1988, it was in time for a 1989 post-season appearance as well as the 1990 All-Star Game.

Here's a quick excerpt of where the LCS started and finished:

• 1969 - ALCS Baltimore (E), Minnesota (W) - NLCS Atlanta (W), New York (E)
• 1970 - ALCS Minnesota (W), Baltimore (E) - NLCS Pittsburgh (E), Cincinnati (W)
• 1971 - ALCS Baltimore (E), Oakland (W) - NLCS San Francisco (W), Pittsburgh (E)
• 1972 - ALCS Oakland (W), Detroit (E) - NLCS Pittsburgh (E), Cincinnati (W)
• etc.
• 1981 - ALCS New York (E), Oakland (W) - NLCS Los Angeles (W), Montreal (E)
• 1982 - ALCS Anaheim [California] (W), Milwaukee (E) - NLCS St. Louis (E), Atlanta (W)
• 1983 - ALCS Baltimore (E), Chicago (W) - NLCS Los Angeles (W), Philadelphia (E)
• 1984 - ALCS Kansas City (W), Detroit (E) - NLCS Chicago (E), San Diego (W)

See League Championship Series and its subordinate articles for tons of detail. Wahkeenah 10:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Home field advantage

I agree with Wahkeenah. Where is the source saying that the Cubs would have to play their post season home games at another park? That seems absurd and I'm pretty certain I would have remembered that. It needs to be be sourced or removed.

• The threat was raised in 1985, not 1984. However, it became moot, as the Cubs failed to make the post-season. By the time they did again, in 1989, they had lights. Wahkeenah 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what happened. In 1984, the National League champion was due to host the World Series opener, as it was an even-numbered year, and in those days the Series always began on a Tuesday. The Commissioner ruled that if the Cubs were the N.L. representative, the Series would begin instead in the American League city. Wrigley Field would have gotten Games 3, 4 and (if necessary) 5, to be played in the afternoon on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The Friday game would have been the first weekday day game in the Series in many years, and was regarded a necessary evil. However, the Commissioner wasn't going to sacrifice any other prime time evening telecasts. It all became meaningless when the Cubs lost the championship series to San Diego. On a subsequent pennant run, the Cubs were told that they'd have to play their World Series home games in St. Louis, a move intended to force the installation of lights at Wrigley. WHPratt (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for a reference for the above 1984 fact, and found it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_World_Series, the paragraph entitled "San Diego Padres." It confirms my recollection. WHPratt (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not there anymore, as someone deemed it irrelevant, so this particular fact lives on here only. WHPratt (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

New Photo??

Does anybody have photographs of the new renovations (bleachers, outfield luxury box)???

It seems that this could be useful, especially if you had photos of it before and after, outside and in. --MJHankel 11:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is, or was, a link or two in the article that shows renovations post-during-after. Wahkeenah 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple photos I took on June 2nd. Compare with the older photo of the old outer wall, and it will give some idea. Baseball Bugs 02:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

New bleacher entrance added... want anything more? RMelon (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice photo. To really do it right, we would need a "before" and "after" photo of some of these features. That might be overkill, as the bleachers' layout can be inferred by the existing photos in the article, even if they are not perfectly aligned with each other or sitting next to each other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Spinoffs?

There is so much info on this page that it's getting a bit heavy. I'm wondering if the "memorable moments" should be spun off to its own article, with just a couple or three major highlights listed herein? Baseball Bugs 02:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Built in 7 weeks?

According to the info posted here, Wrigley field broke ground and then opened in SEVEN WEEKS? That seems a bit unrealistic. I know things were different, but is that a typo? Seven weeks to build the stadium originally? I couldn't find a date for that on the official Cubs site. Anyone have anything on this? Dopefish 22:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

According to A Day at the Park, that's for real. There are several facts to keep in mind: (1) They only had to build a single deck and put a roof over it; (2) the deck did not extend all the way down the left field line due to buildings in the way; (3) the deck was narrower than it is now. Groups of crews working on sections could get it done very quickly. All they would have to do is lay out the steel, then the forms, and pour the concrete and let it harden, then install the seats. This was a pretty minimalistic structure originally (some would argue it still is). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture References and Night Baseball

The Statler Brothers song "Don't Wait on Me" talked about many impossible things: "When the sun wakes up in the West..." and "When the lights go on at Wrigley Field, I'll be coming home to you." After lights were installed at Wrigley Field, the lyric was changed to something like When they build a dome over Wrigley Field ..., but I haven't found a source for this revised lyric. RalphOnTheRailroad 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a source for the lyric change and updated the page RalphOnTheRailroad (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

2007 Field Replacement

I think the current renovation project is relavent, but I don't really have the time to go looking for sources. The fact that Wrigley is the last MLB park to get a drainage system (and therefore lose it's crown system) is extremely notable, especially after all of the media hoop-la that was generated in the second half of this year after the Police concerts. Does anyone want to look up information and cite it? I know Cubs.com has a bunch of stuff, and there's been some information in some of the local papers through the project (namely, I know I saw something in the Daily Herald a few weeks back). —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a section, but I'll even admit it is lacking in both detail and citations. Help on this would be appreciated as this is a huge turning point for this historic venue. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Cubs Vine Line for November has a photo on p.4 showing the outfield being re-sodded between the last regular season home game and the 3rd game of the NLDS, a 13-day interval. There's nothing about any post-season plans to re-sod again, nor any mention of a change to the drainage system. The sod was supplied by a firm in Oswego, IL. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But apparently they did. Here's the writeup on MLB.com: [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Replacing the sod twice in the space of two months seems like a waste, but presumably they know what they're doing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

They didn't just replace the sod. they ripped up the entire field to install drainage, which Wrigley didn't have. See the pic I just added. RMelon (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an excellent pic. My point being that they spent money to replace sod that was only going to be around for a few weeks before they ripped it all out again. No wonder hot dogs and sodas are so expensive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I just hope the new drainage and grass type doesn't take away from Wrigley having notoriously high and thick grass in the infield. I think it added to the Cubs' home field advantage... Which one could argue was negated by the number of day games played (especially after away night games) Whatever. Updating, the field looks great, the grass is a lighter shade of green right now. I'll post a pick soon. :-) RMelon (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WrigleyFieldLogo150.PNG

Image:WrigleyFieldLogo150.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Sponsorship

I have added the following paragraph to the bottom of the "Corporate Sponsorship" section. It has been deleted mutliple times by a gentleman (Baseball Bugs)claiming it was "advertising". I would like to have some Wrigley/Cubs fans weigh in on the issue. I feel the addition of 70 new seats on the field, naming rights, and TWO seat auctions (that change the way season tickets have been distributed since the beginning of the team) is something that should be more then glazed over based on the current capacity and naming issue going on at Wrigley and in the Cubs organization. Additionally, even if you believe it is unimportant, do you feel it is a violation of any policy? To be honest there are entire pages I find unimportant or even downright offensive. That does not give me the right to delete them. Wikipedia is for reporting facts. Opinions are for chat rooms. Removal of information that is relevant to a section based on opinion of its importance alone seems like it should be a violation of a policy in and of itself. Thank for taking the time to respond!--Lmusielak (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

70 seats is about 1/600th of the ballpark's capacity. Even the seating areas on the buildings across the streets are larger than that. The other items in that section are large and readily visible to most everyone in the park. However, if there is too much information, those other mentions could also be scaled back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia "is not an indiscrimate collection of information". The problem is not so much with the bare facts, but with the "undue weight" given to just 70 seats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, predictions of the future are not permitted in wikipedia. Adn the Bud Light Bleachers info has 1 or 2 sentences, and that covers several thousand seats. CBOE is getting more than its share of attention here by having its 1 sentence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Baseball Bugs. The paragraph was excessive, and did read like advertising. The sentence that sums everything up is sufficient. RMelon (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to put the paragraph in question in my post. I apologize. In addition, I feel the paragraph EVEN WITHOUT MENTION OF THE CBOE AT ALL is worth posting. It has been less then a year since Sam Zell bought the Tribune and already he is selling seats and changing traditions. It is a corporate sell out if nothing else. The paragraph I would like to add is posted below. If you check the page history you will note I have made changes in an attempt to appease disgruntled parties. "In February of 2008 the Chicago Cubs announced plans for a new partnership with the Chicago Board Options Exchange. The partnership will include the first-ever auction of season tickets to Cubs home games in conjunction with naming rights to approximately 70 new seats that will be placed next to the Cubs dugout on the third base line. The new seats will be named by the CBOE. In addition, throughout the regular season, a second sponored auction will give fans the chance to bid on prime seats in the stadium via the Chicago Cubs website on a single-game basis. The tickets auctioned will include front row seats located behind home plate and near the visitor's bullpen." --Lmusielak (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The "corporate sell-out" began in 1981 when the Cubs were sold to the Tribune. This still doesn't merit more than one sentence. It's just another way to raise money to pay these yahoos' inflated salaries. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see the point in a full paragraph. If a person is interested in learning more about the seats, they can click the external link. If the rationale for adding the paragraph centers around Wrigley's changes under Zell, perhaps you should search for more information on that topic. If a significant amount of information exists, or comes to exist in his tenure as owner, and that information suggests that he's significantly impacted the history of Wrigley Field, then a new section could be added. As of right now, however, it's my opinion that he hasn't done anything significant enough to warrant more than a sentence in certain sections of the page. RMelon (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

White flag time

I added the "White Flag Time At Wrigley!" section from the Cubs article here. It's relevant to the subject, but has anyone ever heard that saying? I've been a fan since I can remember, and I've never heard that. Was it something Brickhouse used to say? I'm going to change it to something more like "'W' and 'L' Flags" or something similar unless someone has an objection. Also, I'm too lazy to find references for that info, but it seems accurate to me. Anyone know where that info came from? RMelon (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Brickhouse wouldn't have said it, since they swapped the colors about 9 years after he retired. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I used to see the flags from the "el" on the ride home from highschool (early 60's) but nothing was "made" of them...no name or anything like that. It's more of a current phenomenon(sp)--Buster7 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Historic moments

This section is awfully unweildly, and some of it little more than trivia. How about pruning it down, or even moving it wholesale to its own page so it doesn't clutter an otherwise solid article? SixFourThree (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Separate article would be a good idea. Likewise for other parks with a long history, especially Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park. Any book on these ballparks has plenty of references to historic moments. A list of this nature is easier to read than conventional prose verbiage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If it was in its own article, I wouldn't mind the format. So, any objection to my creating a new page? SixFourThree (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Typically the originating page would have a token list of maybe 4 or 5 "key" historic moments, with a "main page ..." or some such pointing to the full list. It would be interesting to narrow it down to a handful. I'm thinking that the top-grade historic moments would include the 1915 Federal League pennant clinch, the 1938 "homer in the gloamin'", the 1998 one-game playoff win over the Giants, the Bears' 1963 championship, and Babe Ruth's called shot. Those jump out at me as being items that would be highlighted in any book about Wrigley Field. There could be a few others, but I wouldn't let it get larger than 8 to 10. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that neither Fenway Park nor Yankee Stadium has such a list, and I fear that isolating will result in someone challenging it as an "indiscriminate" list or some such. Maybe calling it a "time line" would be a more neutral title, and maybe such a list could also be created for those other two ballparks (and for any others). And maybe I should take this up on the project page, running the risk it might get zapped, but that's show biz. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Friday-Saturday nights?

Someone stated that city ordinances forbid night games on Fridays and Saturdays. I removed it as being uncited, and also because if it's true, and if the Cubs manage to get to the 2008 World Series, there's going to be trouble - typically all 7 games of the Series are night games, and the game for the 25th, in the NL city, is a Saturday. So either the alleged ordinance will be suspended, or the Cubs will have to play in Milwaukee. Unless the network decides to telecast during the day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Features"

This short section contains at least one run-on sentence (made up of what might be at least three sentences).Relgif (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Wrigley-Field

I included a paragraph about this scientist who chose her name for the stadium, having the perfect preconditions (mother called Wrigley, father called Field). Don't really know if this might be considered out of line or immaterial, but I think it does have its relevance for the main subject of the article. --WernR (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Seating Capacity

The Official site of the Cubs shows 41,160. That would, of course, been for the end of the 2014 Season. Phase One of the renovation has eliminated about 5,000 bleacher seats. That should be reflected in the April 2015 seating capacity number which should be "about" 36.160. I suggest the capacity be changed to reflect the actual number rather than a number that includes seats that don't exist right now. . Buster Seven Talk 13:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Orphaned references in Wrigley Field

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Wrigley Field's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "si":

• From WWE: Johnson, William (March 25, 1991). "Wrestling With Success". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
• From Cole Hamels: Bamberger, Michael (October 22, 2008). "Cole Hamels figures to be key in World Series". SI.com. Time. p. 1. Retrieved January 12, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wrigley Field. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151112141514/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20151110/corona/pepsi-ditches-mets-for-cubs to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20151110/corona/pepsi-ditches-mets-for-cubs

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Wrigley Field logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Significant overhauls

Hi! I'd just like to note that I plan to make some significant edits here in the coming weeks / months. Happy to discuss/debate any changes here or on my user talk page. Paradoxsociety 20:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Wrigley-Field

While editor @Sea Dog deleted my reference to a real-life person bearing the same name, presumably on a count of triviality, I still think it is an interesting bit of knowledge, so I'd like to share it at least here, among the converted, as it were:

There is a sociologist and demographer called Elizabeth Wrigley-Field who is currently teaching at the University of Minnesota She has her name from her parents (her mother was a Wrigley, her father a Field) but they called her simply Field, so she had to take legal steps to change her name to Wrigley-Field.

Keep up the good (wikipedian) work! WernR (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Bruce Springsteen

Played Wrigley Field twice in August of 2023. 96.38.23.218 (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)