Talk:Borchert Field

message: :Image:1943 brewersticket.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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.
If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:1943 brewersticket.jpg

message: Removing reference to charter members of the American League.  They didn't play at Borchert but at the Lloyd Street Grounds.  SixFourThree (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess they got locked out from using it somehow. Maybe like what happened in D.C. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really skeptical about the opening and closing dates for Lloyd Street Grounds - only one season?  Under other circumstances I'd say that it makes sense to build a new ballpark to commemorate the Western League becoming major, but according to contemporary reports the Brewers were already in the process of moving when the season started.  And if the stadium wa shiny and new, why abandon it after one year and put the minor league team in a 15 year-old park?  There's something more to it - have to do more research.  SixFourThree (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wooden ballparks weren't all that "shiny". They were typically considered to be temporary structures. It wasn't until 1908-09 that big-league owners began to see that baseball had a sense of permanence about it. Some minor league teams were playing in wooden ballparks clear into the 1970s (Decatur, IL, for example). It's possible there were structural defects. It's more likely that the land was merely leased (as was often the case with ballpark property) and after the Brewers moved to St. Louis, the owners of the land ripped down the wooden stands, forcing the new team to return to Borchert Field. All conjecture, though. And I agree there was something more to it, other things going on. That ballpark is a bit of a mystery that has not really been explored in any depth that I know of. Probably the way to find out is to review some Milwaukee newspapers of the time and get the real story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All very possible.  As you note, wooden ballparks weren't always considered to be permanent, but since the only images we have (sketchy ones at that) show not a utilitarian structure but an ornate one, and that it was apparently built to house a new major league team, I'm surprised that it didn't last.  Maybe the owners didn't consider a new minor league team to be worth keeping the place around.  I'll write to the Milwaukee Historical Society, see if they can shine any light on this.  SixFourThree (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth a try. Also, if you live anywhere near Milwaukee, you could visit the library and read any microfilm of newspapers from 1900-01-02 and see if the pieces start to fit together. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, but I know some people who do.  Maybe I can convince one of them to do some legwork.  The good news is that we're not talking about a whole lot of microfilm.  SixFourThree (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, I elaborated on the above in the two parks' articles. Feel free to try to word it better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1901 Brewers

message: I don't see any point in adding questionable new facts along with a "fact" tag. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wtf? The fact tag was for something else. Don't revert my edits. Enigma message Review 00:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact tag was for the part that said it was called Borchert's Orchard. Enigma message Review 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. Well, the Benson book doesn't say anything about that, so the fact tag could be appropriate. Meanwhile, your sources are contradictory on a couple of points, so we might have to put some question marks in. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not good like this. We'll have to look for other sources to see what the correct years were. Can't have "this or this" in an encyclopedia. I assume you have a copy of the book on you? Maybe we could ask Benson what his sources were? Enigma message Review 02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could ask MLB what their source is. Interestingly, the book says Borchert himself died in 1927, so naming it for him in his memory in 1928 would make sense. And there's no harm in having alternate information from alternate sources. Consider the Ty Cobb article, in which the different lifetime totals are covered. Of course, there is a clear explanation for it. Not for this. Obviously, they can't both be right. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further complicating matters is that Green Cathedrals says it opened on May 20, 1887, which squares with Benson; and that it was renamed in honor of the deceased Otto Borchert in 1927 (presumably post-season). It also says Borchert bought the team in 1919. It's possible that the "Borchert's Orchard" name, if that was ever for-real (Lowry doesn't mention it), was an informal name during 1919-1927. One thing all sources seem consistent on is its use as an ice rink in winter. Another interesting bit in the Lowry book: "In 1896 it was converted into a camp and stables for a Wisconsin National Guard cavalry troop. It was converted back for baseball use in 1902." That last part is certainly true, and the rest of it sounds reasonable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And as a further complication, Lowry's more recent edition says 1888. It also has the statements contradicting the Veeck moving-screen story, which appear to have been inserted into this article verbatim. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Take Me Out to the Ballpark, by the Sporting News, 1987 edition, says that the ballpark opened in 1887, and then "in 1888, the field was known as Athletic Park". It also states that the owners in 1894 didn't like the lease terms, which is why they moved to Lloyd Street in 1895. It says that when Borchert bought the team in 1919 is when it was renamed from Brewer Field to Borchert Field. It also says Otto Borchert died "on the eve" of the 1927 season. All this is like a jigsaw puzzle. Fun, ain't it? It also talks about the ice rink. At least that story is consistent. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all very confusing but I'm pretty sure it was originally an ice rink before it became a ballfield. The years are repeatedly contradicted by different sources, and there's no way of knowing if one source took it from another source anyway. Enigma message Review 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way to know for sure is to get hold of the newspaper microfilm from that era. I wouldn't be too sure about the ice rink preceding the ballpark. Converting a ball field to a skating rink in the winter was not uncommon in those days. And things get more complicated because now people are using wikipedia as a source, and it can get circular. The Babe Ruth book, The Big Bam, listed wikipedia among its sources. So that makes quoting from that book chancy, unless we're certain some fact didn't come from wikipedia in the first place. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as I love this place, using it as a primary source is questionable.  I have some reference material from the period - see if I can confirm that the nickname was period.  For what it's worth, Borchert's widow took over the team when he died, so renaming the place after him seems like a natural.  SixFourThree (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The true wikipedia would be the first to agree. It's a reference, not a primary source. In any case, the Podoll book cleared some things up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milwaukee Athletic Park? 

message: Okay, I ordered the book cited for the SABR researchers.  I'm still very wary of the way in which it's written - "in all likelihood" doesn't seem very encyclopedic.  I think there's a more neutral way to phrase it - going to edit, let me know what you think.  SixFourThree (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moveable fence?