Talk:Minnesota Twins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Minnesota Twins: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

What do you guys think about adding http://twins.mn-sz.com as a external link?

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Minnesota Twins article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies


Flag
Portal
 Minnesota Twins is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
edit 
This page is part of the scope of WikiProject Minnesota Twins, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of the Minnesota Twins. Please feel free to join us.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Contraction

Under franchise history: should include mention of the Twins being one of the two teams targeted for "contraction" in 2002. The Twins were mentioned in the article on the Expos (the other team targeted).

[edit] 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. (Flag of Venezuela VEN vs. Flag of Venezuela). 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] #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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/n/Talk%7EMinnesota_Twins_ccd4.html"