Talk:Minnesota Twins

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).

"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

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)
• 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)

• 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 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)