Talk:Target Field

Infobox location

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)

I don't know if anything can be done about it, and I doubt that anything can be, but none of the satellite or aerial images pointed to by the infobox lat/lon is up to date. They all show a giant parking lot where the stadium now is. All but one of them appear to be the exact same satellite photo, which must be from before 2010 even though the imagery date on Google Earth/Google Maps shows as 2011. There should be some sort of caveat in the infobox until the satellite imagery catches up with the reality on the ground. Poihths (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Pawlenty's Changing views

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.[1] 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)

How am I supposed to add the quote then? I did have it in quotes and had the startribune article as a reference.

how about something like as a state rep ten years ago Pawlenty was opposed to the state paying for a professional sports team stadiumSmith03 03:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I agree with Bobak,the quote about Pawlenty's view should be on his page and not included on the ballpark page. Smith03 17:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason not to use brief quotes of the sort routinely used in all manner of publications, properly marked with quote marks and properly sourced with references. That is absolutely within the bounds of fair use.Poihths (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

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)

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)

I wouldn't bet on the "swarm" materializing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Care to reconsider that anti-"swarm" opinion, Baseball Bugs??? :)24.245.56.62 (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Seating capacity

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

• Actually, the capacity is 56,000 with the curtain up, however you are right that for most of the season it is closer to 48,000. I will add that to the comparison. Smarterthanu91 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• The game I was at a week or so ago had nearly 40,323 people at it because the Twins are selling more and more standing room only tickets (which would have been infeasible at the dome). I wonder if that warrants an asterisk in the capacity, or dome comparison, or if standing room only options are somewhat implied in modern ballparks. Vita10gy (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I see someone added it to the Capacity section as 42,500. That seems awfully high to me, and I can't find a source that mentions anything that high. Their max attendance is 40,814, however it's possible a twins official did throw out that number as a potential max they'd consider selling for a world series or something. Source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vita10gy (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Photo updated

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)

Actual site photo

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)

New photo! 357 days later, the same perspective. --Bobak (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, don't know how to add photos to an article without screwing up the page, but i have uploaded a very recent photo of the construction here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Target_Field_March_2009.JPG#metadata Would someone mind placing it in the article for me? - JohnsRUs 13:01, 19 March 2009

I'll give it a try. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Ground breaking... ceremony vs. actual

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)

get picture of construction in there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.72.18 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What's stopping you from doing that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Cleanup: Controversy material

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)

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)

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)

Dimensions; Reference for the

Does anybody know the _SOURCE_ from which the field's dimensions are taken? If yes, please add the reference. Also, a note as to _WHY_ the Deep Left Center is deeper would be appreciated. LP-mn (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I did find this source: http://www.ballparkauthority.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={DCB023A1-5808-45F5-B18A-D8E8DA72C5A5}.
However, it is labeled as "preliminary dimensions'.
LP-mn (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The current source is what's posted on the outfield fences. The "preliminary" sources were off by a foot or two on the right field side, from what's actually there. Maybe instead of "deep LCF" it should say "deepest part of CF"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary:

LF - 339, as posted
LCF - 377, as posted
CF deepest part, just to left of straight CF - 411 posted (CF fence cuts across at a 45 degree angle)
CF - prelim 404, posted 403
RCF - prelim 367, posted 365 (no sign posted on the overhanging seats that are a little bit to the RF side of the 367 sign)
RF - 328, as posted

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, LF and CF fence appear to be about 8 feet, i.e. about 2 feet higher than grounds crew members standing next to it; and RF fence (which starts at the 403 sign) appears to be just short of 3 x 8, i.e. 23, as stated in the prelim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, true straightaway center is not posted. The 411 and 403 are at the ends of the 45-degree fence in center, and the blank center of that fence is true center field. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are the outfield markers: File:Target Field LF signs.JPG File:Target Field CF-RF signs.JPG. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

opening paragraph

"It is the first facility built specifically for the Twins, as Metropolitan Stadium was originally a minor league baseball park, "

it is true that tf is the first ballpark specifically built for the twins in Minnesota and it is true that the met first housed a minor league team. it should be pointed out that the met was built to get a major league team. it was a genric ballpark that could be easily expanded when/if a major league team came to bloomington. it was not built as a "minor league" ballpark. Smith03 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It was not built specifically for the Twins, but to attract a major league club, which at the time was suspected to be the Giants, who had rights to the territory. It's a lot like the situation in St. Petersburg, where the Suncoast Dome (now Tropican Field) was built to attract a team, thought at the time to be the White Sox, but ultimately it was occupied by the expansion Tampa Bay Devil Rays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed? Good point to take into account, though. The opening paragraph should also be reworded -- as it stands now, the sentence explaining why it is the first park built for the Twins is incredibly long and awkwardly phrased. jreedy21

Fire

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)

Agreed. The section on the fire was trivial and out of place, so I removed it. Crumley (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Gates?

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)

• I think it was clear enough, but I agree the mention was pointless, and I removed it. Personally I feel like the description that follows it is way too detailed for the Summary section. The gates numbers and who they represent might be better in the features section. Vita10gy (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be in the lead. I think the main point was that the gates are not numbered (or lettered) consecutively like they were at the Dome, and that they only honor Twins players. However, the list of retired numbers, which is posted on a balcony behind the left field corner, does include the 42, in Dodgers colors instead of Twins colors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I took the opening-day photo from commons and created an isolation that centers on the retired numbers. File:Target Field retired numbers.JPG. If anyone here knows what tag to use rather than PD-self, which isn't really correct, please let me know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Reccomendation for "Good Article" Status

I am not sure how to reccomend "Good Article" status, but I think that in terms of how this article describes the stadium in a sports context and in the planning context, this article meets the criteria for a "Good Article". If enough people agree, I think someone who knows how should get it to a "Good Article".

Thank you. User:ATPerrin

File:Minnie and Paul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Minnie and Paul.jpg, 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)

Minnesota Lumberjacks

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)

They did it again. Undone again.Marzolian (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Retractable roof cost

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)