Talk:Minnesota Twins/Archive 1

2006

Not exactly an encyclopedia-like entry, and written from a Twins fan bias imho. Mientkiewicz5508 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• You're just bitter that the team traded you. Sparkyfry 20:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Using terms like "spunk drunk" aren't exactly encyclopedia-ish. And even if I was Mientkiewicz, I still got a ring, so why would I be bitter (I'm not Mientkiewicz). Mientkiewicz5508 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nah, actually, I agree with you that it's unencyclopedic. (Although I believe the term was "punch-drunk". I don't want to think about what "spunk drunk" might mean.) I'd also say the 2006 section seems to be getting a bit clunky. It seems like people are now adding a few sentences each time the team completes another series. At this pace, that section will be longer than War and Peace by the end of the season. It might be worth creating a new article entitled "2006 Minnesota Twins" to track this year's team's progress, and to go along with all the other articles about one team from one year. Sparkyfry 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone supposedly already is doing that, for all the seasons. Check farther down the page. Wahkeenah 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, that would be me. (Or were you being facetious?) I've done the years 1987 and 1991-2005. (I started watching the Twins during the 1991 World Series, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to write about the team before that.) I had left the year 2006 out of those articles, though, because it seems premature to write that article. But I think it would be preferable to have such an article than having an ever-expanding "2006" section in the main Twins article. Sparkyfry 23:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Roger. Sorry, I failed to compare the names. Yes, you should move the 2006 stuff out and provide a link to it in that same point in the article, so that other eager writers will get the hint. Just think how much they would have to write about if the Twins actually had a prayer of catching the Tigers? >:) Wahkeenah 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Done and done.Sparkyfry 01:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Mientkiewicz, whatever happened to him? Last I heard, he had been banished to Kansas City. Wahkeenah 23:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct. Is it really a banishment, though? He gets to play every day (at least he did before going on the DL), and his average has rebounded to .283.Sparkyfry 01:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That might be a career high. He should retire now. He was better known as a glove man, of course. Every time a Twins first-sacker messes up, I yell at the TV screen, "Dougie would-a had it!" In fact, the last I heard, he is still hanging on tight to that last throw in 2004. Wahkeenah 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know, man. Morneau gets the job done defensively -- he has a .994 fielding percentage (both for the year and for his career). And Mientkiewicz will never have David Ortiz-like numbers, but he did hit .300 a couple years with the Twins.Sparkyfry 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

SEWilco

Will you stop screwing up these roster pages. Your work on these are tacky. --CFIF 15:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please be more specific than "tacky". (SEWilco 23:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I think CFIF's objection was the appearance of the {{flag|XXX}} template vs. the {{flagicon|XXX}} one (or the equivalent non-template version he reverted to). Having the flag and the three-letter country code is a bit ugly. (VEN vs. ). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion apparently is taking place in Talk:Los_Angeles_Dodgers#Cleaning_up_25-man_roster. (SEWilco 04:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Only detractors of the Twins call the team the 'Twinkies.' It's a derogatory term and any reference to the term in Wkiipedia should be dropped. Some Twins fans may use the term, but it's akin to calling my sister ugly. I call call her ugly but nobody else can. - R Duenow

• In other words, fans can call them the Twinkies, but no one else can. And I knew Twins fans who call them that. So it works. Wahkeenah 23:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Twinkies

I found this quote from quite awhile ago:

"We are no longer the Twinkies. We're the World Champion Minnesota Twins." - Steve Lombardozzi

I would say that if someone who won the World Series with them in 1987 refers to them as the Twinkies it is a valid nickname; so the last revert should be undone. Season ticket holder or not, your elitism doesn't change their nickname. (reference to edit comment) Peyna 21:59:23, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

The Twinkies thing should stay, though it could be given less prominence. android79 22:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I can agree with that; I just reverted it back so that a proper discussion could be had before it turned into a revert war between people who like the nickname and those who don't. I think it's worth giving it a mention, but I wouldn't put it in the header or anything. Peyna 22:28:50, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

I see that season ticket holder is an IP address. If I had paid good money for a season ticket for these characters, I'd want to stay Ann Nonymous also. >:( Wahkeenah 00:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm mostly frustrated with the assertation that most fans refer to them as Twinkies. Go talk to the real fans, they won't say that unless they're speaking in jest or demeaning the team.

I use the word "Twinks" in conversation all the time – I guess I'm not a "real fan" then. I'll give back my Homer Hankies, forget that I was at '91 Game 7 and go buy a Red Sox cap. Go Manny!

Sarcasm aside, the intro does need some work. Does the pink backpack need a mention in the second paragraph, for instance? android79 00:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I only moved here 8 years ago, but my good buddy has lived here his whole life so far, and he most often calls them the Twinkies when he's mad at their so-called hitters for "swinging at crap", like Jones and others seem to do too often. I sometimes think that Kirby Puckett, with one good eye and about 300 pounds on him, could outhit a lot of these guys. d:\ Wahkeenah 01:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

One other point... I'm from Illinois, and every time they sing "root, root, root for the CUBBIES" it makes me cringe. But there's no fighting it. Wahkeenah 01:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I've neutered the "Twinkies" passage a bit. Hope that's better. android79 01:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The funny thing is, that reference was there for months before Ann messed with it. I'm guessing it's a frustrated fan that has to take out its aggressions on something... anything! Wahkeenah 01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The mention of "Twinkies" was there for months because it is a common nickname. Generally used in a demeaning fashion, although usually a friendly demeaning fashion. Even fanatics sometimes have complaints. (SEWilco 16:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC))

I'm the Ann (just hadn't registered yet). I wasn't taking my frustrations with the team out on Wikipedia. I just don't like a term that in my experience has been used in a demeaning fashion getting such prominence on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justsayinwords (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. I always considered it an embarrassing nickname, "Twinkees", and never really accepted it as anything any self-respecting Twins fan would use. Seems like something ChiSox or Tribe fans would use on them the past 3 or 4 years, though, preceeded by "Damn". I am not a Twins fan, but I am not anti-Twins. But if I was anti-Twins, I would definitely refer to them as "Twinkees". Seems like something that should be pushed to the bottom of the page tucked away would it would not cause any more brew-ha-has. But I would not remove it entirely.--CrazyTalk 16:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see it moved down to a Nicknames section or something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justsayinwords (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the best NPOV approach would be to state that is a (commonly used?) nickname; however, it is often used in a demeaning manner by their opponents' fans. Of course, it's worth pointing out that often times groups will embrace what the "enemy" sees as a demeaning nickname in order to boost their own morale, i.e. "Yankee" used to be a pejorative in reference to American Colonists, and now it is a term of pride. Perhaps "Twinkies" is in some kind of transitional phase. Peyna 16:50:44, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

That's where the Athletics' elephant symbol came from, for example. John McGraw said the American League was a "white elephant". So Connie Mack had his Philadelphia A's start to wear an elephant logo on their jerseys. I don't see a Hostess Twinkies logo being displayed on the Twins' uniforms anytime soon, though.  :) Wahkeenah 17:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a revert war going on between Balla24dust and Akhilleus on whether or not to include the Twinkies nickname. I'm a Twins fan and don't care for the nickname myself, but I have heard it used before. However, including it in the first sentence of the article seems to be giving it more prominence than it deserves. Perhaps a compromise would be to include in the "Quick Facts" portion of the article. It's not giving it more credit that it deserves, but acknowledging its existence. Come to think of it, I'll make that change now, but this post can be used as a discussion point if anyone has any particularly strong feelings about it. Sparkyfry 20:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I think the nickname belongs in the lead; it certainly needs to be in the article. I know that many fans don't like the nickname, but if it's a common nickname, it doesn't matter whether the fans like it or not. Some Twins fans do use it affectionately; fans of other teams and sportswriters use the nickname fairly commonly. Some examples:

• a fan blog, twinkietown.com
• Minneapolis Star-Tribune writer Jim Souhan: "Castillo, meanwhile, has become more of a Twins-type player than most of the homegrown Twinkies."
• baseball writer and Twins fan Aaron Gleeman, quoting an old article in the Minnesota Daily: "In trading Viola, the Twins became the first team ever to trade a Cy Young winner the following season. Maybe the reason no team, until our beloved Twinkies, unloaded a Cy winner is because it would be an incredibly stupid move."
• an article from October 2002 on mlb.com: "With their 13-5 victory over the Minnesota Twins, the Angels powered their way into the World Series on Sunday. They're darlings of the American League now, making monkeys out of the Twinkies."
• Steve Lombardozzi, after the Twins won the '87 series: "We are no longer the Twinkies. We're the World Champion Minnesota Twins."

Some of those uses are derogatory, but I don't think that twinkietown.com is intended as an insult, and Souhan uses the nickname as part of praising Luis Castillo and the Twins' style of play. I certainly think the name is common enough to mention in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you that the nickname is used, but you're proposing listing something that is basically a synonym in the introductory sentence of an article, which seems a little soon. It makes the introductory sentence unwieldy, which it shouldn't be. A direct comparison is the New York Yankees page. That vile, disgusting team of overpaid hooligans who lose the ability to throw after two years is also known as the "Bronx Bombers," but that nickname is only mentioned under the "Quick Facts" section. (There is also a redirect to the Yankees page if you search for "Bronx Bombers.") Bronx Bombers is a much more commonly used nickname than "Minnesota Twinkies" (and I'm sure the Yankees page is edited every minute), so I don't see why the Twinkies reference deserve to be given more prominence. Sparkyfry 21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems ok to me, I was mostly irrated that User:Balla24dust was taking out the text without discussing the changes. As long as the article mentions "Twinkies" somewhere that's sufficient. BTW, the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Philadelphia 76ers both have their nicknames mentioned in the lead, but those nicknames are used way more often than "Twinkies" or "Bronx Bombers". --Akhilleus (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hard to believe this cream-pie fight is still going on. It's in trivia, which would seem to be sufficient. In the case of Bucs and Sixers, those are just abbreviations. Bronx Bombers is a sportswriter's term from way back; I doubt the fans call them that out loud, maybe just in writing. "Twinkies" is a way for the fans to kind of make fun of their team yet in sort of an affectionate way. Cubs fans used to dislike "Cubbies" for the same reason, but somehow it has caught on. Wahkeenah 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I was surprised to see this fight start again. Once I saw the revert war beginning, I thought I'd try a middle-ground approach. It does seem unnecessary to give an occasionally-used, sometimes-derogatory nickname prime billing in the opening sentence. Sparkyfry 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Part of the trouble is that it's hard to come up with anything clever as a synonym for "Twins". It's short for "Twin Cities Baseball Club", or whatever. So you can't do much else with it. Hence "Twinkies". More of a joke among fans than a real nickname, like calling the Cubs the "Scrubs" or some such. Wahkeenah 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • just keep it out of the main title, it is a nickname, but not a nickname solicited by the organization.

#44 retired?

Can anyone confirm or deny if the Twins officially retired #44 for Bob Casey? I could not find it on their website; if it was officially retired, please provide a source.--CrazyTalk 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, if they retired number 44 (for Casey's 44 years with the Twins) it's certainly news to the website. [1] I think it should be removed until or if verified. I found already several websites pointing back to this one with that probably erroneous factoid. Wahkeenah 11:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they only retired #44 for one year to honor Bob Casey. Gnosbush 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Contraction fight

Does anyone know more details about that and could write it up? Tfine80 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I know enough to write a bit, but have no sources.

Here's what I know: Commisioner Bud Seilig wanted to move or disband the Minnesota twins and Montreal Expos due to lack of inncome. The Motreal Expos were moved to Washington D.C., and the twins made it to the American League Finals, generating a bigger income, and were allow to stay in Minnesota. Attendance has been going up ever since. No sources, not enough for a section, but its a start. I could put it in and add a headliner saying it doesnt site its sources, and I would leave a note here saying that it is only this section. It was a big deal, but I dont know where to find any sources to back up what I know.False Prophet 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

One major thing to add is that the owner, Carl Pohlad, was more than willing to allow Seilig to do it; he stood to gain a lot of money from the team's demise. However, since they were not contracted, Pohlad became even less popular with the public and the media since he hadn't done anything to prevent the contraction of the team. Dwade21 05:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of the above is wrong to my knowledge, The Twins had a Iron clad lease with the metrodrome with which prevented their demise, the leauge took them to court but lost after the judge ruled they must stay until the end of the 2004 season I believe it was that yr, in addition to the twins doing so well that year 2002, the contraction possibilty was lifted and caused the Expos to move to D.C instead of being disbanded. On a side note later the twins went to court again and the court ruled their lease deal was over due to some kind of loophole I believe, and removed the roadblock which saved them in the first place but allowed them to pave the way to a new stadium deal. I dont have any sources either but I will see what I can find on the issue --Chad 09:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Individual Articles for each year's teams

I was thinking it would be a good idea to have individual articles devoted to each year's team that are separate from the main Minnesota Twins page. This seems appropriate because the teams from each year have unique identities and stories. Further, including 45 lengthy entries about each year's teams in the main article would make that article unwieldy and awkward. I intend to write these articles myself, but it will take some time. To prove I'm serious about this project, I chose to start with the worst team in recent memory: the 1999 Minnesota Twins. (I'm a lifetime Twins fan, and writing this article involved reliving some painful memories.) A user suggested that that article be merged with the main Twins article, so I am writing this by way of explanation. Thoughts? Sparkyfry 01:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• So you're the one that posted all those red links. Good luck. Wahkeenah 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• I like the idea. I would especially like it if we could get a roster for each year of those who played on the team. I know the roster changes through out the year but it would be pretty cool to get a rough overview. Gnosbush 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in the first time I made that addition. Gnosbush: I'd happily accept help with the articles.  :-) Sparkyfry 03:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've considered doing the same with the New York Mets. Since there seems to be no opposition, why not remove the {{mergefrom}} in this article? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Your wish is my command. Good luck with the Mets articles. Sparkyfry 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If this trend continues, I wonder what poor soul would be stuck with doing the Tampa Bay "Devils Food Cakes"? Maybe some Florida-based DUI convict, sentenced to many hours of "community service". Wahkeenah 23:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't suppose anyone would be "stuck" doing it - if it doesn't get done, so be it. Just my opinion anyway. God knows it wouldn't be the first concept never completed here - take a look at the mind-numbing number of articles under the Stub categories umbrella!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'll work on 1965 and 2002. 2 years that should be good to write about. I have the offical stat book for this year, so I could go through as many as I can this weekend and insert rosters. False Prophet 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone can please create the 1991 article, there's no need for it to be a redirect. If you google 1991 minnesota twins, im sure that you will find a lot of info. I've finnished '91, and I'll add '61 to my todo list
    • I recreated the 1991 article using the format I used for the article on the 1999 Twins. Obviously, you don't have to use that format. However, I thought it would be a good starting point, and I hope it will prevent anal retentive Wikipedians from turning it into another redirect link. It's nice to see other people getting involved with this project. I particularly like what you've done, False Prophet. Keep it up! Sparkyfry 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I have been adding some material to the already created articles and I think it would be cool if we could have one of those nifty templates on the bottom of each page that has links to alll of the historical teams' pages. However, I'm not quite sure how to make one. I will read up on it. Smarterthanu91 06:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Cool, keep up the good work, Smarterthanu91. You know, though, that you should be able to create articles yourself, right? I think as long as you are logging in under an account name, you have the power to create articles. Just thought I'd check -- I wouldn't want you to limit yourself to what other people have started. Sparkyfry 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I have created the 2003 to 2005 articles and will work on some more soon. And I was still thinking that we should get one of those templates, like I said before. However, I cannot figure out how to get one, so if anyone could look into that that would be great. Smarterthanu91 04:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Just to let you all know, I created a template to be used for these articles. It is extremely basic , so feel free to edit it. It can be found here: Template:MNTwinsYearly. Smarterthanu91 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• And now i have added infoboxes for each year's team, but I would really appreciate some ideas for it, because they are kind of repetitive. However, I think they will be very useful when earlier years articles are being created. It can be edited here: Template:MLB yearly infobox. Smarterthanu91 04:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dusty Kielmohr

Could some of you diehard Twins fans lend me some support in arguing that Dusty Kielmohr, the Dustan Mohr/Bobby Kielty hybrid from 2002, deserves his own article? Some anal retentive Wikipedians are arguing that there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article on this topic. I wrote the article specifically because somebody used the term "Dusty Kielmohr" in conversation the other day, and I was trying to remember what it referred to. This seems like exactly the sort of situation Wikipedia can help with. I get the feeling these nimrods feel an article is worthwhile only if the event it describes happened in New York or Chicago. If anyone's willing to help, the discussion is occurring here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dusty_Kilmore

Thank you! Sparkyfry 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Season-by-Season Records

This section of the article takes up a whole bunch of space and i think that it should be in its own article like Minnesota Twins managers and ownership article. Does anyone else think the same about this? Smarterthanu91 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These tables take up a lot of bytes. I would not object to a new page titled Minnesota Twins Season by Season Records or something similar, even better.--Gephart 20:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Many other team pages have Season-by-Season Records. Milwaukee Brewers, St. Louis Cardinals, Seattle Mariners, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Detroit Tigers (to name a few). It packs a lot of information into a relatively small space and becomes a convenient link to the yearly team page. Russ Anderson 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kansas City Blues Relevant?

In the section that identified the Kansas City Blues as the precursor to the Senators and Twins, Shan man stewart wrote the following in the text of the article: "This can't be true because blues music, which originated in Missouri, wasn't even invented until WAY after 1894. The Twins originated from the Washington Senators, NOT the Kansas City Blues."

Writing this in the text of the article was bad form, but I think he may have a point. I'd wondered about this myself, because I'd never heard it anywhere before. My copy of "Total Baseball" says that "When American League president Ban Johnson established the Senators as part of his move in 1901 to raise the league to major league status, he staffed it with the manager and many of the players from his disbanded Kansas City franchise." The fact that the Kansas City team was in the minor leagues and that the team had disbanded suggests that the Senators could not be the same team as the Blues. Although many of the players are the same, the team/franchise isn't.

Consequently, I deleted all references to the Kansas Blues from the article. I think the article could reference the fact that many players were from the Kansas City team, but it shouldn't identify the teams as the same. I don't have time to write that now, but somebody else certainly could. Do people agree, or do they think I'm totally full of it? Sparkyfry 00:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the point that the team may not have originated from the Blues, however I disagree with this logic: "This can't be true because blues music, which originated in Missouri, wasn't even invented until WAY after 1894." Perhaps the team was called the Blues for its colors (i.e. Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Browns, etc.) and not after the music genre. --Smarterthanu91 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I should have mentioned that I thought his conclusion made sense -- not the reasons he gave for it. Sparkyfry 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Shan man stewart's contributions page, you'll see that every one of his edits has been reverted, and he's about to be blocked for vandalism. I know zilch about this baseball team, but since you're discussing one of his edits, I thought that should be pointed out. Miss Dark 00:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. However, I think he may have made a legitimate point in this case, albeit inadvertently. Sparkyfry 02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason for TC logo

I have heard the reason why the team had the TC on the hat in 1961 was because there was concern that people would assume that the M should for Mpls and not MN. Now why people would assume a team called Minnesota would have a M on the hat standing for Mpls I don't know but that is what I have had heard. I did some research around the name Twin Cities Twins and could not find any proof from the era that the team was thinking of using that name. The team moved to MSP in Oct 1960 and a month later they unveiled the name Minnesota Twins and the hand shaking logo (interesting note the logo had the two guys shaking hands and on the jerseys of each was a MT logo not a M and STP that was later used) the team did not unveil uniforms and hats until Jan of 1961 with the tc logo Smith03 01:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is obvious why a TC logo is on the hat. Back then, Minneapolis and St. Paul each had their own minor league team. I believe both were in the American Association. If you want to get the support of the former St Paul fans, you aren't going to get them with a hat that says M on it. DandyDan2007 13:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're answering a 4 1/2 month old question. Hopefully that fan didn't die of frustration. d:) Your assessment of the situation is correct. When they re-introduced the "M" caps back in the early 90s or whenever it was, they probably figured this was no longer such a political issue. Keep in mind that the Saints had built their own new park in the 1950s, just as the Millers had. The Saints' park was too small for big league usage and was essentially a waste of money. Met Stadium was built to major league specifications, and when the majors came looking, there was no chance the St. Paul park would be used. I expect the citizenry were a little touchy about that issue as well. Wahkeenah 16:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge From 2006 Minnesota Twins

I would suggest this whole page (2006 Minnesota Twins) be merged into the main article Minnesota Twins. No other team has a specific year article, and all have chronological information on the main page for each team. There is also 2006 in baseball for things having to do solely with the year 2006. Please also see: Talk:2006 Minnesota Twins — Linnwood 22:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• FYI, this conversation is happening here. Sparkyfry 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed--2006 is over, it is past, it is over with, it is dead letter, it is bygone, it is over and done with, it is beyond hope, it is just another failure in the playoffs, it is time to move on to 2007. Elcajonfarms 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sigh. We have team articles for each year from 1991 through 2005. I don't see why 2006 should be any different. Don't Merge it! Sparkyfry 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section "Four-Eyed Infield"--REQUEST FOR EXPANSION/FILL IN/CORRECTION

I distinctly recall the four-eyed infield (first time in major league history when the 3, 4, 5 and 6 positions all were fielded by a player wearing eye glasses) from the mid-1960s. Don Mincher at 1st was one who wore glasses, and so was Zoilo Versalles at short. I believe the other two were Bernie Allen and Rich Rollins, who were the everyday infielders at 2nd and 3rd during the mid-1960s. Pretty sure but not certain that the day would have been the first day Don Mincher entered a game at 1st for the Twins, but have left blanks for those who might have verifiable information. Elcajonfarms 01:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I finally got around to creating a wikiproject for the Twins in an attempt to give us a centeral page for all Twins Work. I put it at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Minnesota Twins. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 19:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone, there were some capitalization problems with the page and templates for the WikiProject, hopefully I've fixed them. The WikiProject page is at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota Twins. The page template is at Template:WikiProject Minnesota Twins and the member template is at Template:WikiProject Minnesota Twins member. Hopefully I got all of that right. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Radio and Television Section

This section seems to be out of place in the article. However, I'm not sure where it would fit best. Any ideas? --Smarterthanu91 • Talk 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the section totally belongs here--why wouldn't it? The radio production of Twins baseball in the early 1960s is what cemented their position as the favored major league sports team (possibly excepting the Vikings) throughout the Upper Midwest and the Northern Plains states. Which is why the following news release leaves such a poignant sense of loss today:

4/1/2007 9:49:47 PM

Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS -- Hall of Fame broadcaster Herb Carneal, whose smooth baritone narrated Minnesota Twins games for the past 45 seasons, died Sunday morning of congestive heart failure. He was 83.

Carneal was part of the club's radio play-by-play crew for all but the first year of the team's existence in Minnesota.

"To hear that voice was magic," said former first baseman Kent Hrbek, who listened to Twins games growing up in the suburb of Bloomington and later played 13 seasons for the team before retiring in 1994. "When I was a kid, it meant school was almost out and spring was coming."

All of us will miss that voice. Elcajonfarms 05:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

When I said it was out of place, I meant that it doesn't look right on the bottom of the article, away from all of the main text. See what I mean? --Smarterthanu91 • Talk 00:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Minnesota Twins 1991 World Champions Graphic.JPG

Image:Minnesota Twins 1991 World Champions Graphic.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 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 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.BetacommandBot 04:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable players: Jeff Cirillo?

Is Jeff Cirillo truly a notable Twin? He played for less than a full season with the club, was not an everyday player, and wasn't exactly spectacular in the field or at the plate. I'm not downplaying the earlier parts of his career; his tenure with the Twins was simply uneventful. android79 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he's back with them now. If he can hit above the Mendoza Line, he'll be notable there. Baseball Bugs 17:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Back with whom? He's playing for the D-backs now. I'm not sure what your point is. android79 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. He was on the Twins when I saw them on the 1st. Two days later he was gone, and I missed that deal. So he's not really a notable Twin at this point. Is he a notable D-back, even? Baseball Bugs 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Cirillo from the list. android79 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor League Affilates?

I couldnt find a list of Twins' minor league affiliates-- can someone add this? 129.21.148.208 07:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• What's stopping you from doing that work? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Twins 6171.gif

Image:Twins 6171.gif 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 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.

BetacommandBot 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Twins 7286.gif

Image:Twins 7286.gif 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 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.

BetacommandBot 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Senators section

I would like to condense and generally rewrite this section, which among other problems spends way too much time on the Senators/Nationals issue. I can get to it in the next few days. Any objections? CaseCom 15:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's done. It turned out longer than planned, but that's what editing is for, right? CaseCom 21:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Minnesota Twins Cap (1987 - Pres).png

Image:Minnesota Twins Cap (1987 - Pres).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 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.

BetacommandBot 08:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I set up archiving on this talk page due to some very outdated comments.   jj137 (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

After considering San Francisco...

The blurb on their move west, which is very good and concise, mentions that San Francisco was considered. How much? Is there a cite? I remember reading on www.baseball-fever.com that Clark had been considering Los Angeles ayear or two before his death, then rejected it because of his loyalty to Washington, and his agreement with the Orioles' owners. But, I had never heard San Francisco, or read it. (It's probably not enough to go into detail, but I do think "Los Angeles or..." could be placed before " San Francisco." Someone would have to checked the aforementioned discussion site to see the article in question.)209.244.30.221 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Originally called the Washington Nationals?

Check out this link on the generally reliable Baseball Reference dot com:

[2]

It states that between the years of 1905, and 1955 the Washington Senators were officially named the Washington Nationals. I've never heard of this, and I'm in no way personally endorsing this. I've been unable to verify that piece of information anywhere else, but sadly information on the old Washington team isn't exactly easy to find online. Does anyone have an opinion about this, or knowledge either way? Maybe a Twins fan has a book about the history of the team? If this is true, it'd be a great addition to the page. Hossrex (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That is, in fact, correct or at least mostly correct. Somehow that info has virtually disappeared from this article, but it's explained at some length in History of baseball team nicknames#Washington, D. C.. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

While I quite frequently find a problem with people using the phrase "literally" in situations/contexts in which it isn't warranted, I would say this is a situation where it hasn't "virtually" disappeared from this article, but it has in fact "literally" disappeared. I still don't have the requisite background to re-add the information (hey... I'm a Dodgers fan... I simply love baseball history, and read whatever I can... that doesn't mean I'm an expert when it comes to Minnesota Twins history), but if you have enough information to back up the link I've provided, it would probably be nice if you could do so (I haven't checked the page to see if this has happened. It probably has. I don't know). Either way... I'm simply trying to help as a baseball psudo-historian. Hossrex (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The baseball-reference link will do as a base reference, and if someone wants more info, I have plenty. In a nutshell - they officially renamed themselves "Nationals" in 1905, but the "Senators" nickname persisted, and in 1956 they finally gave up and officially adopted "Senators". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I modified the intro, and realized that the intro now contains more info about it than the article does, which is not proper, so I'll have to get back to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To give extra credibility to the Baseball Reference site, the 2/3/1905 Washington Post has an article about the owner renaming the Senators, then on 3/26/1905 the new Nationals name was announced. A reference to the article can be found on the bottom of [3]. I have verified the articles on microfilm. That site also mentions a 10/31/1956 article on the remaining of the Nationals to Senators. Various other websites list this change anywhere from 1955-60. Based on that article it was done after the 56 season for the 57 season. As of now I have not been able to physically verify that article. It would be nice to finally get that nailed down EC2 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted in Marc Okkonen's book on baseball uniforms, the name change occurred following the 1956 season, but it wasn't until 1959 that the word "Senators" finally appeared on their shirts. That might be part of the reason there's confusion. It's worth noting that the name change, ordered by Calvin Griffith, came just a little more than a year after his adoptive father, Clark Griffith, had died. I'm guessing that was just one way that Calvin chose to help modernize the team. Another way was by shortening the left field foul line distance from a ridiculous 405 to something in the 380s. I just checked the Sporting News Official Baseball Guide for those years. The club's nickname is listed as "Nationals" in the 1955 and 1956 editions, and as "Senators" in the 1957 edition. So there you have it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Intro

Does anyone else think it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to have two paragraphs in the intro about the old Washington team's name? --Tocino 03:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It was changed as part of the re-write when the History article was broken out. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and the Washington era is an important part of the team history. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

But it seems more than just a summary to me. The two paragraphs about just the old name, not about on-field results in Washington, are longer than the two following paragraphs which summarize the team's days in Minnesota. --Tocino 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Even now, more of the team's history is in Washington than in Minnesota. They won't reach the 50-50 point until the 2020 season. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think it needs to be changed, then go ahead and re-write it or add to it; I just don't want to see summary deletion of valuable info. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see the argument that the intro has maybe too much minutia about the Nats vs. Senators nicknames. As long as all that info is in the body, it could maybe be condensed a bit in the summary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the lead shouldn't be any shorter than it is right now to be a true summary of the article, so whoever is undertaking the re-write should try to keep the same amount of info in the lead by adding other information. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a little more conciseness about the Senators, and a little more detail about the Twins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

"They are the fraudulent 2009 American League Central Division champions." I don't see why Detroit Tiger fans are being bitter, the bottom line is the Twins won the AL Central division fair and square. Tboy206 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• And the IP editor was warned. Get past it; vandalism happens. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Citing

There is a lot of source citing that needs to be done here. You can't write an article based on your own knowledge alone. This is an encyclopedia.

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Year established

The infor box lists the franchise founding years as 1894, but that Washington Senators team (which played in the National League) is not the same franchise that started play with the American league in 1901. I've changed the date in the info box to 1901.Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know where that came from, but thanks. 1901 is indeed the established year (see also List of Minnesota Twins managers). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That 1894 date would have to do with the AL's roots in the Western League. Nothing to do with the NL club of the 1890s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In early October, one of the last vestiges of info about the alleged ancestor of this club, in Kansas City, was removed [4] but the IP address that did that forgot to change the founding date from 1894 to 1901. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New Uniforms

How do we go about changing the images in the infobox for uniforms now that the new designs are out? Is that an image that was found on mlb.com somewhere, or did someone create that? I'm willing to do some work on this, but didn't know where the original images were found. Twinsrulemlb (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The original images were mostly created by User:Silent Wind of Doom. He can probably help you. I wouldn't want to try an undertaking as complicated as these new Twins unis, which is why I haven't done it yet. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion the new uniforms will feature the Target logo on the back? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you win the division championship, you're always the Target... ;-) KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the subliminal message. To really do it right, they should also have little green-screen rectangles on their backs so that Target could broaden their advertising. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Little Piranhas

This was a nickname given the team by an opposing manager as a term of respect, and has actually been officially marketed by the Minnesota Twins Baseball Club since in the form of T-shirts, hats, stuffed animals, and signs. Throughout the 2009 season the name was used by broadcasters Dick Bremer and Bert Blyleven. This nickname is at least as historically significant as the name "Twinkies", which has only been used in an unofficial capacity and with a negative connotation, and should stay in the article. Rapier1 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's what Ozzie Guillen called them, and I wouldn't say it was "respectful", exactly; it's just sometimes been worn as a badge of defiance. Kind of like how "Winning Ugly" was worn by the White Sox in 1983 after Texas Ranges manager Doug Rader said it in much the same tone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Originally intended as respectful or not, the Club made a considerable effort to publicize the name and it does belong. Rapier1 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing would be a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For both "Twinkies" and "Pirhanas" then...I linked "Pirhanas" to the wiki site already in existence regarding that name, but removed "Twinkies" as unsourced Rapier1 (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, "Twinkies" is often used by fans, while "Piranhas" is something that turns up in the media sometimes but is not used by fans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikis are not reliable sources. Here is a source from The Guardian using Twinkies, and another from the Associated Press reported by Fox. The thing about the Piranhas is that it's not a permanent nickname. It was used by Guillen to refer to a specific group of players a couple of years ago. It's not in current use. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I put ["patrick reusse" "twinkies"] into google (Reusse is a Star-Tribune columnist) and came up with a several hundred references, mostly blogs, including one called "twinkietown": [5] Like I said, it's a fans' term. I've never yet heard any Twins fan call the team the "piranhas". That's connected with Ozzie Guillen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm a Twin Cities native and have lived here all my life, I've been a rabid Twins fan since my grandfather took me to games at Metropolitan Stadium and up until last year was a season ticket holder (all 81 games). I'm not trying to put forth original research, I'm simply saying that I'm familiar with the situation and don't need it explained. I'm a member of both WikiProject: Baseball and WikiProject: Minnesota Twins and my goal here is to improve the article. Gentlemen, to address your issues in order:
1.) If the team is currently marketing the nickname (it is) then it's "current".
2.) The name originated with Guillen talking about 4 players, but in later interviews he expanded that discription to include the entire team, including the pitching staff (look at the source material for the Wiki article on the nickname for media coverage), and at this point the Twins front office adopted the nickname and started marketing it.
3.) I know Patrick Reusse (I actually worked at the Strib doing security work during Gulf War I when they were getting bomb threats), and if you want to add that source and name feel free to do so. That's what Wikipedia is all about.
4.) Bugs, you are seriously mistaken. I'm not using Wiki to source anything. I'm adding a link to a current page that is adequately sourced already. Those sources need not be repeated here.
This is a fairly minor point and it really isn't worth having to go to dispute resolution, but at this point I believe we are flirting with the 3-revert rule. Given the facts above I am restoring the nickname -if nothing else it's worthwhile to note that there exists a secondary article- and if you guys feel it's necessary we can bring it to arbitration. Bugs, I'll add Twinkies as well and feel free to use one of the many sources you mentioned to source it. Rapier1 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to know if there are any actual fans who call the team the "Piranhas" currently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All that article proves is that the nickname was used at one time. It does not prove that it's used currently. The notability of the Piranha nickname is not the point under debate. The nickname Piranhas is part of Twins culture, and appears in the navbox as such, but is not a current nickname of the team and doesn't belong in the infobox at the beginning of the article. If you're so hellbent on having it determined to have it in the article besides the navbox, then write a small section for this article to be included in the current history section "Contraction and the future", and if you want to write more about it, put it in History of the Minnesota Twins. This is not something that belongs in the infobox of this article because it's not currently applicable. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the problem with "Piranhas" is that it is a reference to a specific group of players or a specific team, just as "Murder's Row" and "The Gashouse Gang" are applied to specfic teams but not ot the Yankees or Cardinals as a whole. Other nicknames, like "The Bronx Bombers" and "The Cards" have been applied to their franchises as a whole after continous use over many years and are readily identified with those teams. I recommend removing "Piranhas" as a nickname but noting the term in the body of the article as it discusses the 2006 and 2009 teamsnWkharrisjr (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise with "Twinkies", which has been used informally by fans for a number of years, although it's hard to find "legitimate" sources for it because it's not acknowledged by the team as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But I did provide two recent reliable sources above (August 2008 and September 2009) that verify that "Twinkies" is still in regular use. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The first one is a blog, but the second one appears to be a straightforward news story from just this past season. That might be enough as a "reliable" source, after which perhaps blogs could be used as "examples"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Blogs written by notable writers and published by otherwise reliable sources in a news format are often considered to be reliable (see WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper)). In this case, the writer is David Lengel, a reputable sportswriter, and The Guardian is certainly a reliable paper. The other, from a Fox affiliate, is an AP release, so certainly no question there. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep your cool Killer, we're engaging in a discussion here, and it need not get heated. "Twinkies" is not, nor has it ever been, used by the team itself as a nickname of any sort. Journalists and bloggers have occationally used the term, usually in a derogatory way. By your own logic, this term has no place in the navbox as it isn't in current use. By the way, using your criterion for sources, the following would apply to "current use" for "Piranha" as well (http://growthandjustice.typepad.com/my_weblog/ , http://bleacherreport.com/articles/155086-the-piranhas-are-back-in-twins-territory). I'll check back here before editing furthur. Rapier1 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The term is used both by fans and by opponents' fans. And I'm reasonably certain it's used a lot more requently than "Piranhas". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And who said I was getting heated? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's about 10 degrees in Minneapolis, they can use all the heat they can get. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ROFL. Was just talking to a guy in MN about that... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving out the indent here as we're running out of room. Killer, any time you use the term "hellbent on" accomplishing something as you did, you are (in my point of view) being dismissive and disrespectful of their views, thus my comment. That was how it came across. Bugs, good point: I could use a little global warming right now - my wife's car didn't start last night and I had to leave work early to go rescue her. ;-)
This is NOT a big point guys, the sky will not come tumbling down no matter what occurs here. I only bring up the point to illustrate a larger issue, that of what is appropriate here in the article. I'll agree that the term "Twinkies" has been used by many opponents for some time (harkening back to the 1987 Series where Cardinals fans held up signs showing Twinkies with the expiration date of the game being played). I'll disagree with the fact that it is used by fans of the team, however. This is a term that is used in a generally dismissive fashion. As to whether or not "Piranhas" is in widespread use nationwide, perhaps not, but not for lack of trying by team officials and local media. Not only did they encourage the term enough to go to Major League Baseball for permission to create a new logo to advertise the term (http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/2006/09/01/on-the-drawing-board-7/), but as I mentioned above - many writers have also gone out of their way to keep it going into the 2009 season (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/155086-the-piranhas-are-back-in-twins-territory). If we are having a discussion about "current use", then that seems to satisfy it. Rapier1 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you provided above are considered reliable. A reliable source currently utilizing the nickname would be needed to substantiate any claim. Regardless, I think you're completely missing my point that this is not a nickname for the franchise. It's a part of Twins culture as specifically related to the 2006 team, but this article is about the franchise as a whole. As to my comment above, I have stricken the words you thought to be "dismissive" and replaced it with wording better enunciating my actual intent, and would appreciate your reciprocation insinuating that I have disrespected your views, as that wasn't the intent. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I know fans of the team who call them the Twinkies. And look at this fan site called "Twinkietown": [6] (probably a play on "Dinkeytown"). I'm sure "Twinkies" is something that makes some fans cringe, but it's the way things are. Just like I cringe when I hear well-meaning Cubs fans refer to them as the "Cubbies". ARRRGH! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree. The team has marketed the name using the Twins & MLB logos for the last three years on several lines of merchandise, even creating television commercials advertising the name. I didn't put it in the box originally, my only objection was that it was removed because it "wasn't current". It is still being used far beyond what it's original intent was, and I wanted to point that out. Rapier1 (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Contraction" and "Target Field"

These sections of the article are stale and out of date, and contain excessive detail in relation to other parts of the article. Now that the move to Target field is settled and the threat of an imminent move or disbandment of the team is resolved, these sections should be rewritten into a much shorter section (3 or 4 sentences at most) describing the impetus for the move from the Metrodome to a new field and the opening of the new facility with the long-term future of the Twins in the Twin Cities assured.

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

1967 reference needs to be fixed

The article states that the Red Sox won two of three games from the Twins in the last series of the regular season. In fact the series consisted of only two games, played on September 30 and October 1, 1967 in Fenway Park in Boston. The Red Sox won both.

Confirmed. Can easily be referenced and replaced. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationality of Players

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball § Nationality of Players

Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Uniform colors

As KV notes, "grey" is most certainly NOT one of the "team colors". It has been standard practice since the early days of professional baseball to have a home uniform with a white or "whitish" base and to wear "road grays". That was done officially to help keep the teams visually separate on the field, and unofficially to try to disguise how often (or not) the uniforms were cleaned while a team was on the road. I would even question whether "white" should be listed - except for the fact that some clubs use a different base color than white, such as a cream color. The Giants have worn a cream-colored base for a long time. One of the Twins' variants is a cream-colored base, but I don't think they consider cream to be a team color (though they might, if they get sponsorship from Land O Lakes!) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, although the Twins' media guide goes into a good deal of detail about the 2010 uniforms, they don't explicitly say, "The team colors are..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"TC"

In the 2010 season I noticed that the Twins were back to using the TC hats as their primary insignia. The article was somewhat vague on this. I added something, but it may need to all be rewritten by somebody else. It was TC, then it was M, and now it is TC again. Not sure of the exact years. I see that Mauer wears a retro helmet when he's catching too.

Neanderthalprimadonna (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Target Field References

Added three references to the building/financing of Target Field and deleted the "we need references" banner from the "Target Field" section. All three references are from legitimate news sources. The Mpls Star Tribune article is an editorial, but I only used it to corroborate that the Pohlads put $185M into the project rather than the previously listed amount of I think $135.4M and did not include any opinion off of it (eventhough it reads as opinion neutral and looks to be an editorial in name only). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckruschke (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Blyleven's cap

Both Bert Blyleven himself (in a press conferance in Cooperstown) and the Baseball Hall of Fame confirmed that Blyleven will go in the Hall of Fame with a Twins cap on and therefore his name should be bold on the list of Twins Hall of Famers. http://baseballhall.org/news/museum-news/plaque-caps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.30.59 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not his choice. It's the Hall's decision and that doesn't say that the Hall has made the decision. Those are the player's words, which have bearing but are not the final say. See WP:CRYSTAL. — KV5 • Talk • 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, Blyleven has not yet been inducted per se, only elected, and I don't see the harm done in waiting 6 months until the plaque is unveiled to bold his name in the box. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is even more proof. "When you look at the totality of the situation, neither player would've made it to Cooperstown without the stops in the cities they played in," Idelson said. "But from a historical standpoint, it was clear to our staff that Minnesota and Toronto made sense, and Robbie and Bert concurred." http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110106&content_id=16399296&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louieschuth (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Louieschuth that the decision has been officially made, although I don't really care if we wait 6 months. The article that he has cited above has the following quote which I think makes the definitive case about what cap Bert will wear: Hall of Fame president Jeff Idelson confirmed the wishes of both players when he announced that Alomar will be enshrined in a Blue Jays cap, while Blyleven will don a Twins cap.Ckruschke (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

There was a similar argument across the board after the November Congressional elections, in that the newly elected Congresspeople had not yet assumed their offices, and some people didn't want that information referenced until they were. It came down to the point that it was widely reported in reliable sources that it was going to occur, and barring death or some other wild circumstance it would have to take place that way, so since the edits met Wikipedia standards for inclusion, they went forward. Same can be done here. It's been reported in multiple reliable sources that this will occur, even though it hasn't yet, it can be included. Rapier (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Current Uniforms

I know that there have been some Twins uni changes for this year (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/110328_MLB_preview&sportCat=mlb), but it appears that the "Alt 1" and "Alt 2" uniforms shown on this page are identical. Whoever created this image should probably edit it. Ckruschke (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Minnesota Twins → Minnesota Twins (baseball team) –The current name is ambiguous. It sounds like it's refering to a pair of twins who were from Minnesota. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment wouldn't it more likely be the Twin Cities, after which the team is named, than a pair of twins? (I am not voicing an opinion on the move request per se, just the rationale) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak/somewhat disinterested oppose This seems like a bit of a disambiguation stretch, and could cover a lot of pro teams - the Tampa Bay area had a history of piracy, John Adams was a New England patriot, every American in New York is a yankee, several individuals/companies probably produce beer in Milwaukee, etc. I've never heard the Twin Cities referred to as the "Twins" (sometimes just the "Cities", but never the "Twins"), and I don't know of any birth twins who are widely known as the "Minnesota Twins". AlexiusHoratius 08:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The purpose of disambiguation is to distinguish among existing Wiki articles, not between a real article and an imagined article. The title should normally be the common name of the subject. Parenthetical disambiguation should be used only when that interferes with the title of some other article. Kauffner (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I vaguely see where the nom is coming from, but I disagree. It's clear that the baseball team is the primary topic (every google hit relates to the team and I've even heard of them over in Australia) and we generally don't preemptively disambiguate anyway (i.e. if Minnesota Twins would just redirect to Minnesota Twins (baseball team) then the disambiguation is pointless). As a bit of a side note, I see that you (Od Mishehu) appear to work primarily with categories and it's worth noting that categories are often disambiguated when there is even the smallest chance of ambiguity, but this is not the case for articles (Kauffner explains this just above). Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no ambiguity. The closest approximation I can think of is the Hensel twins, who are called the Hensel twins (note the lower case "t"), not the Minnesota Twins/twins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Team is clearly the primary topic. — KV5 • Talk • 11:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose I don't have anything to add to what's already been said, but I am strongly against this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It is not in the interest of any readers to avoid obviously useful qualifiers like "(baseball team)". Please try to keep naive readers' interests in mind. We serve them, and they outnumber us by orders of magnitude. In the present case, the title is not only ambiguous; it is utterly opaque to most of the world – which is outside the US.

Think about it. Enough of this narrow legalism. Enough excessive use of the "primary topic" idea. (If we must have a substitute for thinking flexibly, let's push something else for a change, OK? It gets boring as well as counterproductive.)

Noetica^Tea? 02:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you also support appending "(baseball team)" or "(football team)" or "(basketball team)" to every other sports organization in America? In any case, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the parenthetical items after an entry. It's not to define what it is - it's to disambiguate it from other similarly-named entities. In this case, there is no disambiguation needed, because there is no other notable entity called "Minnesota Twins". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not misunderstanding anything. You are clinging to a legalistic orthodoxy that fails our readership regularly. There would be nothing wrong with appending "basketball team" and the like as a matter of course. It does no harm; it would quickly reach natural limits. And it would help huge numbers of readers about whom many at RM discussions seem determined to remain unconcerned. In Australia, for example, we generally have not the slightest idea what "Minnesota Twins" might refer to. What harm is there in a minimal qualifier, so that we know instantly what the article is about?

Editors frequenting RMs need to wake up to the needs of a real worldwide readership, as opposed to some fiction cloned from their own experiences, and modelled on their own circumscribed bubble of interests and activities.

Noetica^Tea? 06:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing to disambiguate here. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Then, equally frankly, your comprehension skills are inadequate to the task confronting us at RMs. Show me which phrase of mine was the first you could not understand, and I'll walk you through it. Then we'll move on to the next phrase, OK? Noetica^Tea? 08:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I should be taking that as an insult. Rather, I don't understand why you're trying to turn a simple policy on its head. Be civil in your discourse, and try making an argument that actually reflects policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I might as justifiably feel insulted by this: "Frankly I have no idea what you're talking about." I wrote plainly, and you refused to understand. When I offered to explain, you brushed the offer aside. Civility requires a readiness to consider ideas that do not match one's own. Be civil.

You insist on selected provisions in policy and guidelines; I might insist on others. But rather than spell out the legalistic detail, I appeal directly to the utility of Wikipedia's titles to its readers. Have you, along with many others considering RMs, lost sight of that imperative consideration? Then think again, and respond to reasonable challenges. Noetica^Tea? 00:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There would be no problem for the readers unless they had a different "Minnesota Twins" in mind - and since there is no other "Minnesota Twins", there's no problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A completely doctrinaire assertion. You say there's no problem? That might have something to do with your own intimate knowledge of baseball, and presumably your familiarity with the team called "Minnesota Twins". Others (yes, there are others – different from you and most Americans) know nothing about any of that. For them the present title is obscure at best, and misleading at worst. It is easy to fix that; but there is a mindset at RMs that is firmly against anything obviously helpful, unless it fits with certain favoured principles. What does West Coast Eagles mean to you and your compatriots? I would like that article moved, personally: so that you know at a glance which West Coast it concerns, and what it is generally about. You may disagree. Good luck! We differ.

Noetica^Tea? 02:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is beyond useless compartmentalization. Also don't you try to disambiguate the lesser instance of the terms? If there are any other "Minnesota Twins", these pages would be MUCH less mainstream and should thus need the disambiguation. Ckruschke (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Strong oppose per Muboshgu. – Michael (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The policies and guidelines that others have mentioned here can be found at Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Again, the consensus of the Wikipedia community is that consise article titles are preferable, and phrases in parentheses should generally be only used to disambiguate two or more subjects that share the same name. It is therefore inappropriate to title this article "Minnesota Twins (baseball team)" because there is no other existing article that shares the "Minnesota Twins" name. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the compulsive concern to minimise length of titles without regard for real-world consequences, Z? Sure, conciseness is desirable. But why take that as the end of the story? It's only a rule of thumb to help us as we set out. You distort the picture, when you elevate one principle among many as "the consensus of the Wikipedia community". The underlying consensus is that we help the readers find what they want, without fuss or fossicking. Noetica^Tea? 06:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're misunderstanding the purpose of the parenthetical stuff. It's strictly to disambiguate, and in this case there's nothing to disambiguate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am not. And again, you are failing to follow something perfectly straightforward. It may be new to you, but that does not mean it is irrelevant or wrongheaded. Think again – but outside the square this time. And non-sphexishly. Noetica^Tea? 08:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you've been registered here for nearly seven years, yet have no clue what the term "disambiguation" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the major problem here is what you are arguing is that we should make a fundemental change to a long established guideline. This is something that needs to be brought to a broader venue and not a single move request since a change of that nature would likely be consider to sweeping for here.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, and 70.24.215.154:

I agree that the matter needs to be taken to a broader forum. But in fact there are already provisions to appeal to that work against excessive shortness, like this from WP:TITLE: "Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic?" Well, the present title is recognizable if you already know that "Minnesota Twins" has to do with baseball, but not if you don't know that. There is a great deal still to sort out with such matters; the present system fails readers, partly because of an over-insistence on provisions intended as helpful, but liable to abuse. I will counter that in RMs (and sometimes I have been successful); but I intend also to raise the matter generally. I'm not alone in my concern. See this thread about the absurdly misleading title National Tax Agency. Tell me: what do you both think it is about, without peeking?

Bugs, I know perfectly well what disambiguation is, and how many people imagine that it works best. I have a different view. Imagine that!

I would like everyone here to confront this question. Do you seriously think that East Coast Railway Zone (India) should be moved to East Coast Railway Zone? I don't! And my reasons are obvious. What are yours?

Noetica^Tea? 02:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As there is only one "East Coast Railway Zone" article, the "(India)" is not needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And it's becoming clear that you don't know what the word "ambiguous" means. It means two or more things with the same name. There is only one "Minnesota Twins". There is no amibiguity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

All sorts of things are clear to you, aren't they Bugs? Must be a comfortable feeling.

Naive readers (that's all of us, in most domains) might find the word "twins" ambiguous for a start. And then for some readers (like you, of course), "Minnesota" narrows down the possible or conjectured meanings sufficiently. This fact is independent of which topics have Wikipedia articles devoted to them and which don't. And it is independent of any particular allocation of titles. Those who seek to make these two considerations into the criteria of ambiguity are using the term in a very special sense. Not everyone agrees about that use of the term. Stop pretending that your take is the universal take. For example, just now the closer of the RM for Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts) was happy to leave it at that, and not move to Catholic Memorial School (which remains a redirect to the article).

Noetica^Tea? 04:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing since consensus is clearly against you. The main issue is what do people who search for the term "Minnesota Twins" expect to find... since no other thing/person/whatever has that name then people searching for it would expect to find the article on the baseball team. These hypothetical confused non-baseball knowing individuals that you refer to would not be searching the term and therefore would not be confused about finding an article on a baseball team. This whole discussion seems to be you attempting to prove a point which is not a good use of anyones time.. Spanneraol (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article about the Minnesota Twins does not need to be recognizable by someone who has not heard of the team. As for the Indian rail article, it was moved from the policy-compliant title East Coast Railway in 2010. WP:MOSAT provides for establishing conventions for specific topics, which appears to be what INRI was attempting based on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Railways_in_India#Namings. It doesn't seem like a clear consensus was attained, so I'd support the reverse move. WP:PLACE goes on and on about the best names for articles about cities, and the move discussions often result in stalemate. I just found Talk:Austin, Texas#Requested_move and Talk:Tallahassee, Florida#Requested_move – two U.S. state capitals – in a few minutes of looking. I'm sure there are other examples which did result in a move to the shorter name. IP wrote: "I think the major problem here is what you are arguing is that we should make a fundemental change to a long established guideline." I think that's exactly right. Changing this would be a big deal. – Pnm (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Zzyzx11. Wikipedia uses parenthetical disambiguation when a single term refers to multiple Wikipedia articles. Since this encyclopedia has 3.8 million articles, many of them will be on topics unfamiliar to many readers. I'd wager the subject matter of at least a million articles is not obvious from their titles. There are tens of millions of wikilinks to those articles, which can help the reader get from one topic to another. By requiring parentheses or piping, editors will find and insert fewer links, which I imagine to be the main benefit to readers of concise titles. The capitalization in "Minnesota Twins" is adequate to disambiguate it from the Twin Cities metropolitan area and any other Minnesota twins, of which there appear to be none. Red Meat is an example of a confusing article title, and the title policy itself gives as an example where capitalization is adequate to disambiguate from Red meat. – Pnm (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose.. Anyone searching for the term "Minnesota Twins" already knows about the baseball team. The term would only come up if you searched for it or were reading another article about baseball.. People who know nothing about baseball would not search the term and would therefore not be confused. If they somehow stumble upon the article, they could easily ascertain what they are reading about. Spanneraol (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Retired numbers

The retired numbers sign pic needs to be updated to include Bert Blyleven's #28 and Tom Kelly's #10

Megacheez (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Which graphic is that? Minnesota Twins#Retired numbers clearly has both. Ckruschke (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke