Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium

message: I seem to recall that this proposed renaming never happened -- it was felt to be a poor use of Pentagon cash.  Surely someone in DC can confirm or deny whether the renaming in fact went through.  --Jfruh 16:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been renamed as of yet. I believe the military option is out, and the last i can recall was that a local financial services company, i can't recall the name, was in the for the bidding, but that was maybe a month ago. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 18:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Armed Forces Field at RFK Stadium: Did this ever happen?

message: Why do people keep putting that blurry, distorted photo instead of the clearer, better, baseball photo? User:Getreprimanded 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: We should vote on wheter we should put the D.C. United or Washington Nationals picture, or if we can find another picture for it. ColumbusCrew29 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some things shouldn't be put to a vote.  Anyone who is looking at the two photos objectively can recognize that the baseball one is a higher quality, clearer picture.  If there were two pictures of equal quality, then I could see us having a reasonable discussion about this.  But these pictures aren't equal quality.  If someone wants to contribute a high-quality picture of a D.C. United game, then it would make sense to talk about which one should be at the top. —Cleared as filed. 02:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the D.C. United photo and agree that it is technically inferior and shouldn't be used when a better photo is available. (I took it with a cell phone.) I do think there should be an exterior shot of the stadium as the exterior is much more interesting architectually. In defense of my photo, I don't find the colors "nauseating". I think it's vivid and also like the action and the excitement of the crowd. The other photo makes baseball seem even more boring than it actually is. Most of the spectators aren't even looking at the game.  -- D.M. (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My complaints were about the colors of the seats, not about your photo. For a cellphone photo, it's excellent. And I do think an exterior shot would be nice. If it looks anything like when it was built, it has nice lines to it. Wahkeenah 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Photo?

message: One of the memorable moments states...
:June 18, 2006 - Washington Nationals defeat the New York Yankees on Ryan Zimmerman's walk-off home run, in front of a sellout crowd  45,157 fans, the largest single-game baseball crowd in RFK history.
However, the moment just prior to that says...
:April 14, 2005 - Washington Nationals defeat the Arizona Diamondbacks 5-3, before a crowd of 45,596, to win their first home opener in Washington, D.C. They go on to sweep the 3-game series.
It would seem like the game on April 14, 2005 had "the largest single-game baseball crowd in RFK history". Where's the mistake? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replying three years later since I happen to be viewing this page in case someone else asks someday. For the April 14 game you reference, which was the first regular-season game back in DC since 1971, due to the insane ticket demand some additional temporary stands were put in place (with special permission from MLB) down the two baselines near where the corners of the stands were. Hence the higher capacity for that one game. The problem with citing RFK's capacity is that the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission tends to be vague about the actual numbers. 1995hoo (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Something's Not Right...

message: I've been reading up on this and it appears that there are two different options that are possible: Either the Redskins build a new stadium at the site or the current stadium will be demolished and the site will revert back to the federal government.  The article, D.C.'s next waterfront drama in the Washington Business Journal discusses this.  The National Capital Planning Commision is already studying what to do with the site should it revert back to federal control as explained on this website and their draft report.  I think some of this should be expounded upon in the article as it seems to only give a mention of the proposal to build a new stadium for the Redskins on the site. Mecaterpillar 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future of RFK Stadium after DC United and Nationals Leave

message: Since the Washington Nationals are moving to a new facility, what will become of the pres box that is/was used for baseball?--BigMac1212 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: When not in use

message: Patience, Grasshopper. Until the first game is played in the new one, and unless the old one has been demolished, you can't definitively say they're done with the old one. That violates the wikipedia "crystal ball" rule. For all you know, there could be a leaky pipe that floods the stadium, undermines the infrastructure, and makes it fall into the river. Oops. Not likely, but wikipedia is not in the business of predicting the future. So when Nationals Park actually has its first game, you can close the book on this one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystal ball

message: Hi.
At present, the stadium's history section does not include much detail concerning the tenure of DC United at RFK - despite the relatively high level of success they have had compared to other recent tenants at the stadium.
Is there anyone more familiar with United's history who could consider adding a paragraph's owrth of information about how RFK has been home for the team? --Nerroth (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DC United in the History section

message: I just reverted an edit that attempted to rename "football" as "American football" and "soccer" as "Association Football".  While I am aware of the differences, given that this is an article about a U.S. Stadium, the prevailing American terminology should be in use, yes? LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The typical approach is to link them to the longer name. However, note how it was done in Polo Grounds. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Soccer vs. Association Football

message: In the third paragraph at the top of the article, there's discussion of how Robert Kennedy pushed for integration of the Redskins, with the threat of revoking the team's lease. The last sentence in that paragraph, however, leaves me scratching my head: "That was not necessarily an effective threat or sanction, however, as no National Football League team currently plays in the stadium, and the League has been able to function without the use of the stadium since 1996."  This statement doesn't make sense at all. The Redskins played at RFK for roughly three decades after integrating. Their departure from RFK was about moving to a modern, football-dedicated facility, and had nothing to do with integrating NFL player rosters, which hadn't been an issue in a long time. This sentence needs to be fixed, or removed. Kyojikasshu (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lease-revoking threat

message: It  seems there are a lot of words about multi-purpose stadiums other than RFK. They don't seem relevant  on this page. I can't imagine people coming to this page in search of that particular information rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-purpose_stadium. 
Similarly for the details about Metropolitan Stadium. 69.141.44.218 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  multi-purpose stadium details: irrelevant? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert F. Kennedy Memorial 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727164627/http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/1999/08/30/Sports/When-We.Played.Football.The.Gw.Boys.Of.Fall.18901966-16420.shtml to http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/1999/08/30/Sports/When-We.Played.Football.The.Gw.Boys.Of.Fall.18901966-16420.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130045851/http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Mens-National-Team/2011/06/US-Ready-for-Gold-Cup-Quarterfinal-Match-against-Jamaica.aspx to http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Mens-National-Team/2011/06/US-Ready-for-Gold-Cup-Quarterfinal-Match-against-Jamaica.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the following should be in the article:
On September 16, a fire in the stadium's transformer caused half of the light towers to go dark while the Senators were playing the Kansas City Athletics. The game was suspended in the third inning and resumed two days later.
This is important to the article for several reasons. A: Lights going out in stadiums during games is a rare occurrence. B: The incident generated news coverage. C: The incident speaks to the integrity of the stadium's construction and is useful for helping the reader evaluate how well (or not well) the stadium was built. D: There is very little information about the stadium's early years and almost NO information about sports (its primary purpose). The article isn't exactly teeming with information to the point where we need to cut notable facts to keep it at encyclopedic length. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lights go out 1966