Talk:Minnesota Twins/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  #44 retired? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Individual Articles for each year's teams 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dusty Kielmohr 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Season-by-Season Records 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Kansas City Blues Relevant? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reason for TC logo 

message: 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)
replies: text: *FYI, this conversation is happening here. Sparkyfry 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * 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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Merge From [[2006 Minnesota Twins]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia section "Four-Eyed Infield"--REQUEST FOR EXPANSION/FILL IN/CORRECTION 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikiproject 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Radio and Television Section 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notable players: Jeff Cirillo? 

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

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Twins 6171.gif 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Twins 7286.gif 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Senators section 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  After considering San Francisco... 

message: Check out this link on the generally reliable Baseball Reference dot com:
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Originally called the Washington Nationals? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Intro 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Citing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In early October, one of the last vestiges of info about the alleged ancestor of this club, in Kansas City, was removed  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)
thread_title:  Year established 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And who said I was getting heated?  KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ROFL. Was just talking to a guy in MN about that... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I know fans of the team who call them the Twinkies. And look at this fan site called "Twinkietown":  (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Little [[Piranha]]s 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Rewrite of "Contraction" and "Target Field" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1967 reference needs to be fixed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Uniform colors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "TC" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Target Field References 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Blyleven's cap 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current Uniforms 

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