Talk:2006 Minnesota Twins season

Baseball: Twins Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Minnesota Twins.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Piranhas (baseball) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 June 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2006 Minnesota Twins season. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

2006

I commend you for creating the 2006 Twins page, but I would like to see some cleanup of that opening article to make it more encyclopedia-ish. I'll work on it later tonight if it still isn't done, as I don't have time right now.

Mientkiewicz5508 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, I didn't have time to do it either (and still don't), so I just created it and left in all the warnings about tone and accuracy. Feel free to clean it up when you have time. Sparkyfry 14:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone want to add a part about the Piranha story? Seems rather notable.
    - I did, under "Offense." Sparkyfry 04:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I would suggest this whole page 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. — Linnwood 22:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As basically a current event, there's enough information here to retain for the time being. Sometime in the off-season, the merge can take place. Powers ^T 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of there being enough information, rather it is a matter of standardization. No other team in Major League Baseball has a yearly page, current information should be on the team article page. — Linnwood 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is, in fact, notable. There are plenty of other historical team pages for the twins (see 1965 Minnesota Twins, 2001 Minnesota Twins, 1992 Minnesota Twins). Once the Season is over, This page can be rewritten. I think that teams should do this, as it allows alot more history to be recorded. If you say that this isn't notable, then why is something like 2005 Hurricane Season Notable. This is just another case of intellectual anti-sports bias. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 03:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did notice that "2005 Hurricane Season" has nothing to do with the Carolina Hurricanes, the National Hockey League franchise in North Carolina, who won the Stanley Cup in 2005, but rather the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season & 2005 Pacific hurricane season, right? Going through the "* in baseball" category, I don't find any team aside from the Minnesota Twins who have individual year pages. More so let me remind you to assume good faith before you throw around things like "intellectual anti-sports bias." I happen to be a very large fan of baseball, a White Sox fan infact. I wish nothing more than to improve Wikipedia. — Linnwood 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume he knew it wasn't about the Carolina Hurricanes. It wouldn't make much sense to bring it up while talking about an anti-sports bias otherwise. Other than "no other team has it", do you have a reason regarding policies why this page should be merged? I think having decade summaries on the main article, and yearly pages for more interesting seasons is a nice way to keep things more organized. --Onorem 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no other team in Major League Baseball has a yearly page, it's because no one has written one. That's not a reason to delete this one. Every NFL team has an article on the current season (Category:2006 National Football League season); I don't see why the same isn't perfectly appropriate for MLB teams as well. Powers ^T 12:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We discussed the merits of having individual articles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minnesota_Twins#Individual_Articles_for_each_year.27s_teams There seemed to be consensus that it was a good idea. Each major league season is a unique event followed by millions of people, and individual articles are certainly warranted. Further, it would make the main team article totally unworkable to describe each season in detail. I initially thought it should just be for historical teams, but then people kept writing about the current team in the main Twins article in too much detail. I moved that discussion to the 2006 article, under the assumption it would be rewritten once the season is over. It seemed like a good place to dump information, and then once we have some historical perspective, we can choose what to keep and what to discard.Sparkyfry 17:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that maybe we should create a Twins Wikiproject, and have a page, maybe something like Wikipedia:Wikiproject Minnesota Twins/Current Team where we dump all info posted about the current season, and then and at the end of the season rewrite it and move into the main article namespace. I am going to work on something tomorrow as a draft for the Wikiproject main page and then post a notice on the main twins talk page. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merger seems unnecessary to me. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have an individual article for the 2006 Twins and to have less detailed information about the current team in Minnesota Twins. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like False Prophet's idea. --Smarterthanu91 23:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Well its been a while and no resolution has been made, so I think we should vote on it. Vote merge or no merge. --Smarterthanu91 01:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge --Smarterthanu91 01:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed that the lack of comments meant that the status quo should be maintained. Especially now that the season is over and it's consistent with all the other season articles. Needless to say, I vote No Merge. Sparkyfry 05:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

If the page is NOT merged with Minnesota Twins, I think that the title should be changed to "2006 Minnesota Twins season." This will be consistent with the season pages for football teams, which end with season. Tamajared 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. That seems kind of redundant to me. Plus, I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. Each of these articles includes things that happened during the offseason, i.e., trades that happened in January or December. Sparkyfry 21:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other 3 major U.S. sports begin and end their seasons in different years (if you include the postseason). 'Season' isn't necessary for baseball teams because the entire season takes place during one calendar year. --Onorem 03:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems each of the other pro football and baseball articles end with "season" (e.g. 2006 Indianapolis Colts season, 2006 New York Yankees season) it seems only appropriate to rename the article with "season" at the end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Highway99 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.startribune.com/509/story/605847.html
- In 2006 Minnesota Twins season on 2011-05-26 02:08:22, 404 Not Found
- In 2006 Minnesota Twins season on 2011-06-14 05:23:02, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.startribune.com/souhan/story/624549.html
- In 2006 Minnesota Twins season on 2011-05-26 02:08:22, 404 Not Found
- In 2006 Minnesota Twins season on 2011-06-14 05:23:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]