Talk:Twins Ballpark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
Baseball Portal
Twins Ballpark is within the scope of 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.
Assessment comments

This 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 Minnesota This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within Minnesota articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
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.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)