Talk:Toronto Blue Jays

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Toronto Blue Jays was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 25, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Baseball / Blue Jays (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto Blue Jays (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Toronto / Sport (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.
 

cc photos on flickr[edit]

hi there, i don't do baseball but while browsing for nba photos on flickr i came across this set which you guys might find useful... i think they should all be cc-compliant. apologies if you guys have already come across this before. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The photo sets do appear to be licensed CC-BY-SA, which is compatible with Wikipedia. Resolute 15:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Since they are safe, can they be added to the article? It would be helpful to do so. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I can do that fairly easily. Got any preferences as to which images should be added? A good Halladay image, naturally, probably only one or two more for this article to keep it balanced. Some of those would be pretty good for player articles. Resolute 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Uniform Picture[edit]

The "T" cap is now the official road cap, so the picture should be changed accordingly. Also, since when do the Blue Jays have stirrup style socks? I think this should be changed as well. 99.234.145.123 (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the road cap should change. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nationality of Players[edit]

Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Retro Uniforms[edit]

Are the Blue Jays going to use their baby blue retro uniforms this year? I really liked the uniforms - they are a lot better than the ones they normally use. Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Page Error[edit]

Can we fix the roster section?24.233.183.37 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. It was actually a template that was broken. Thanks for the notice! Resolute 15:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The ongoing dispute about sourcing the 2012 colors[edit]

I'm just going to jump in and question exactly why it is so important to include a source from a blog for the team colors. Especially when there is already a source for colors that is not in dispute. You're both getting perilously closet to 3RR. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why can they not use a news source from either mainstream news or sports news? Either of those are much more acceptable. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I cited the blog cause it's specialty graphic design but that specializes in sports logos. It's a trusted source of colors on Chris Creamer's Sports Logos which I've seen used as a source before. I trust the blog to be accurate and am pretty certain that it would meet reliability guidelines. However, after stepping back for a second. I realize I'm being point-y and would like to drop my argument. However still, I'd like to start a discussion on WT:MLB about the reliability of this blog for future instances. As for the order of the colors, I'd like to see the Blues listed first as they're the prominent colors. Best, CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 22:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I've fully protected this page and Miami Marlins indefinitely per the ongoing edit warring. I remind editors that page protection is not endorsement of the current revision, and that all editors are obliged to endorse their changes by establishing a level of mutual agreement. WilliamH (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For the Miami Marlins, I originally supplied the team's official release. It got reverted in favor of a blog not related to the team or MLB. JaMikePA (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is thattaway --> CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 17:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Jays Sold Out.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Jays Sold Out.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jays Sold Out.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

2012-2013 Off-season blockbuster trade[edit]

Should the off-season blockbuster trade be expanded in the main article? If so, it should not be more than a paragraph. Yes, it is a major change to the Jays roster, but it is not the most important event in 2013. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

History duplication[edit]

The History section should be culled extensively, and simply summarize major events. There's already a hat note at the head of the History section linking to History of the Toronto Blue Jays for more information; most of this article's History section is copied verbatim there. What's the point of sending people to another article that simply copies what is here? I would suggest that that article is the one that should have the heavier detail, and this one can have the history section trimmed. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

100% agree. You can be bold and start the trimming. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Seconded. There is no need for duplication. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of colour names in team infoboxes[edit]

Regarding this edit: I have started a discussion on the talk page for WikiProject Baseball regarding the capitalization. Please provide your feedback in that thread. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

decision was lower case. Cpfan776 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

MLB-designated NL rivals[edit]

What do you think of including the MLB-designated NL rivals of the Jays to the list of rivalries? They alternate between the Braves and the Phillies. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't, personally. That MLB randomly pairs the four teams in the AL and NL East without true interleague rivals for the extra games doesn't really fit the intention of a rivals section. Resolute 13:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I personally don't really like rivalry sections in team articles; it's just a magnet for an overemphasis on recent events, and it places undue weight on specific matchups, unwarranted by the schedule structure. isaacl (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe that rivalries should be mentioned if they are well discussed in both Toronto media and the local media of the Jays' rivals. The Jays-Expos rivalry of course should be mentioned though, since it is a major historical rivalry. The Jays-Orioles rivalry should not be mentioned, since it is not notable enough to be mentioned on both Toronto and Baltimore media. Social media though generally does not count per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, unless mentioned by a journalist writing for a reputable news source. With regards to the Braves and the Phillies, they are designated as rivals by MLB. Readers may be curious to know who the Jays' MLB-designated rivals are. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the season article is a good place to mention the MLB-designated rival for the season, as it affects the schedule. Although I understand why rivalry sections exist, the problem is sports journalism has different standards than an encyclopedic treatment; there is human interest/myth-making aspect which makes the story, rather than reporting impartially on the situation. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Upon reading your comment, I agree that MLB-designated rivals should be mentioned in the season articles. Rivalry sections should only be added if the rivalries themselves have their own articles (such as the Yankees–Red Sox rivalry). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)