Talk:St. Paul Saints

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the St. Paul Saints article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Baseball 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minnesota Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:StPaulSaints.JPG

Image:StPaulSaints.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League

I took "Minor League" out of the lede, but it's all over the rest of the article. My understanding is that the Saints aren't minor league because they're unaffiliated with MLB. If there aren't any objections in the next couple days (and I remember), I'll remove "minor league" from the rest of the article. Awickert (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't Minor League or Major League. No objections. (Go Saints!) -Atmoz (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments based on reading this interesting document [1]: (1) The legal name of "Minor League Baseball" is "National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc." (2) "Minor League Baseball" is not a legal trademark of the NAPBL. Instead, it is what is known as a "common law mark"; that is, it's a name that NAPBL claims rights to because it has used it for many years. The NAPBL does have a registered trademark for "Minor League Baseball and Design." (3) A jury has determined that "minor league baseball" is a "generic" or common term. According to this Website [2], "Generic terms are common words or terms, often found in the dictionary, that identify products and services and are not specific to any particular source. It is not possible to register as a trademark a term that is generic for the goods/services identified in the application." Although I'm not a lawyer, that suggests to me that independent leagues may have the right to describe themselves as "minor league baseball." BRMo (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh - I just Googled the Saints and it had "minor league" right there - although I couldn't find it on their website (didn't look too hard). All right, I'll put it back in. Awickert (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1902-1914

Is there a reason that the 1902-1914 seasons are omitted from the history on this page? The 1903 team won the championship, and the 1904 team came very close. I believe Miller Huggins (who later managed the Cardinals and "Murderers Row" Yankees) was part of that roster. There was a lot of activity concerning where the club played during this period, too. Just curious if the history from those years should be included here or elsewhere. Thanks! Formeat (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Saints are not the Old Saints

is it really fair or historically accurate for a franchise established in 1993 to have the history of two other, discrete organizations as part of their history. The Saints from 1915-1960 were a different organization that dissolved in Omaha in 1962 and really do not have a continuity with the new Saints. It seems a little disingenuous and IMHO requires a few articles for each different iteration of the teams.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Split?

The current St Paul Saints are not the same organization (or in the same league) as either of the previous incarnations. This issue also came up on the Tucson Toros site where an non-affiliated team has taken on the name of the previous AAA team. Shouldn't the pages be split so that there are separate pages for the affiliated and non-affiliated teams? Ckruschke (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]