Talk:Target Field

message: The location in the infobox is pretty off, the location is at least two blocks away from Hennepin Ave (appox NW).  I will change to reflect the designs on the official developer's page as well as the Strib articles.  --Bobak 15:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox location

message: In 1997, Pawlenty, then a state representative, opposed public funding for a new stadium, saying at the time that Minnesotans "do not want the state to use their money to subsidize billionaire team owners, millionaire athletes and the privileged elite who attend games in opulent luxury boxes."
I removed this because it was taken word for word from the startribune article. Please put it in your own words and not copy from the newspaper. You may also want to add that as  governor he needs to look at this from a state wide best interest where as a state rep he is primary looking out for the interest of his district. Also it is not uncommon for politicans to change views over time. Smith03 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the long run, I don't think people reading the stadium's article are going to care quite as much about Pawlenty's changing views on on its financing (beyond a sentence).  Now that certainly may be different for Pawlenty's own article.  Now that this building has moved from proposed to approved, the focus should be on the building and the controversies in making it happen.  Spending too much time on Pawlenty's change in politics may be a little much here.   Also, not to be a wikipedia dork, but if you make a comment on a discussion page please remember to sign (with ~~~~).   --Bobak 17:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pawlenty's Changing views

message: The article has a "Criticism" section but no section of the benefits of the new stadium, including hundereds of new jobs and economic growth for the county.  I just think the article should be more fair--if you're going to have the negatives (which mostly opinion-based), have the positives as well.
Good point please add them to the articleSmith03 17:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this article is something that's similar to a lot of "Current event" articles --especially prior to the official approval of the stadium.  Before that moment a few weeks ago, the article had been already developed on the issues that were being debated at the time.  Unsurprisingly, the people who write these pre-event articles are fewer in number and easily skewed in one direction or another.  As the initial  user pointed out in this section, this article was thus given a clear tinge towards the anti-stadium camp.  When I read this article, the day the House had approved the stadium and it was sailing through to Pawlenty's signature, it was clearly an article about "why the stadium isn't popular amoung the segment of the population."  As an actual downtown resident, I was humor and mildly insulted that the same people who had wrote all the information about why the stadium is a bad idea had never noticed that the location they had identified was completely, totally wrong --something that anyone who'd ever looked at a planning map would've noticed (and I corrected).  But yeah, this is a very long-winded way of agreeing with Smith03 and saying "be bold!"--Bobak 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism section is difficult to approach. It seems easier to delete the whole thing. The reasoning is, the criticism does not really affect the outcome. The park is being built, fans will swarm it when its done. Maybe in 10 years we will be wrong but for now I don't see how this section will tell you more about the stadium. .:DavuMaya:. 17:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't bet on the "swarm" materializing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, since we're playing a bit of Crystal Ball, the stadium site looks gorgeous in person. Then again, it won't matter as much if the team inside isn't all that great.  --Bobak (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to reconsider that anti-"swarm" opinion, Baseball Bugs??? :)24.245.56.62 (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: In the comparison of the two ballparks, isn't the correct Metrodome capacity for baseball 48,000? Kingjeff 23:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seating capacity

message: I noticed the photo was still the old place-holder from the early proposals. I went ahead and uploaded the current, official drawing from the April 12th presentation right on top of the older file and added the beginnings of a new section on the design. --Bobak 18:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo updated 

message: I took a photo of the ballpark's site before work commenced, I think this will be a good vantage point for future photos as the work progresses and I will try to snap more in the (not immediate) future; it certainly begs for a photo in 2010.  --Bobak 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New photo!  357 days later, the same perspective. --Bobak (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll give it a try. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be also adding updates in May from the exact positions I took the previous photos in the past 2 years.  It will make for an interesting comparison. --Bobak (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual site photo 

message: The ceremony was on August 30th, there's no debate on that.  But they started working on the site months earlier.  ---Bobak 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: get picture of construction in there  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.72.18 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's stopping you from doing that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the site isn't quite ready for a new picture.  These day's the work hasn't really risen above the ground level, so the difference between the current before photo wouldn't be as noticeable.  I'm planning to take a photo once the actual structure starts to rise --that would look neat.  --Bobak (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of a dome, to cut construction costs, is going to cost them dearly in the long run. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ground breaking... ceremony vs. actual 

message: I've been doing cleanup on odd "controversy" things and random links to the Taxpayers League. The page was definitely edited by a few stadium-haters back in the day. I'm wondering how much weight do we continue to give to the "opposing" viewpoint if the stadium bill has already passed and is under construction? .:davumaya:. 19:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that a lot of this stuff could eventually be moved to a construction section or potentially a daughter article.  I agree that the tone of this article had a very anti-stadium tone at one point (with some lingering elements), and some of the excessive material could stand being removed. --Bobak (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the funding section completely. I think the current Legis/fund part eloquently explains the referendum issue. The original section was sort of a play-by-play of how it all went down which didn't seem very useful. It also asserted a lot of what if statements that are pretty much givens (you don't build it, they leave). However the sizing issues were moved to Design. .:davumaya:. 17:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup: Controversy material 

message: I haven't done much wiki-ing, I just fixed a spelling and factual error in the fire section (the twins were not swept by the Braves). I don't know what Wiki's policy is but to me this seems far too "newsy" both in that it doesn't read like it should be in an encyclopedia, and in that it sounds copied verbatim from an some article. I'm not sure such a non event warrants a whole section, but if it does the section is pretty poorly written in terms of something that will make sense to someone a decade from now. (References to days of the week, and whatnot.)  Vita10gy (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The section on the fire was trivial and out of place, so I removed it. Crumley (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire 

message: What is the point of mentioning Jackie Robinson's number when talking about the gates? It makes it sound like there is a gate with his number at the field.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.90.130 (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gates? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Minnie and Paul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Undid recent anonymous edit "The Minnesota Lumberjacks decided to start they're carrer in Target Field. The BSL Twins followed the Twins from Target Arena in 2013"
It may or may not be notable, but it needs rewriting, spellcheck, a reference, and it probably does not belong in the lede.  On a hunch, it torns out this IP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.13.37.92) is making a number of similar edits on various ballpark sites of similar quality.TjoeC (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minnesota Lumberjacks 

message: The article says "A retractable roof was cited to add $100 million to the total budget and none of the parties (Twins, Hennepin County or Minnesota Legislature) were willing to pay for that cost." The History of the Minnesota Twins article says "There is no retractable roof on the stadium which would have added about $200 million on to the cost which was $522 million."
Neither article has a citation for the statements. What caught my attention was $100 million vs. $200 million. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retractable roof  cost 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Target Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523093410/http://www.me-engineers.com/projects/?office=global&category=professional_stadiums to http://www.me-engineers.com/projects/?office=global&category=professional_stadiums
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140908065551/http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/17604661/target-field-concert-sells-out-in-hours to http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/17604661/target-field-concert-sells-out-in-hours
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140908065702/http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20042227/kenny-chesney-coming-to-target-field-again to http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20042227/kenny-chesney-coming-to-target-field-again
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029220113/http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?billnumber=HF2480&session_number=0&ls_year=84&year=2005 to http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?billnumber=HF2480&session_number=0&ls_year=84&year=2005
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) 11:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified