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
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
This article about the Toronto Blue Jays has been mentioned by a media organisation:

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. (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? (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)


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)

Indefinite ("a") vs definite ("the") article[edit]

Regarding the article in the first sentence: even leaving aside the question of other professional teams in other leagues, it would be misleading to say, for example, "The Toronto Blue Jays are the Canadian Major League Baseball team...", as this has the connotation that there is a quota in effect, with one Canadian team being the limit. In theory it could be written as "The Toronto Blue Jays are the only Canadian Major League Baseball team...", but I believe this would not align with Wikipedia's best practices for the lead sentence, which specifies that the lead sentence should, if possible, provide context for a nonspecialist and the reason for the subject's notability. To provide context for those not familiar with sports, the best introduction is to start by describing the Jays as a Canadian professional baseball team, using the indefinite article, even if there were no other Canadian professional baseball teams in existence at the moment. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The anon was pushing an absurd argument, as there are several professional baseball teams in Canada at present, and dozens in the past. The use of "the" was also unnecessarily pedantic. Resolute 22:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I placed a note at the end of the lead sentence about this. There are the Vancouver Canadians as well, who are also a professional Canadian baseball team. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of inline notes, particular in this case when there has been only one problematic editor. Also, I think the note misplaces the emphasis of the rationale in two ways: as I mentioned above, there is no quota in place, plus it doesn't matter that the Vancouver Canadians are the only other professional team (I assume that means fully professional, as there are other professional teams in Canada). isaacl (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have modified the inline note to discuss this case. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 18:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toronto Blue Jays. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Effects of the 2015 trades on the Jays' popularity[edit]

It would be good to discuss the addition of the effects of the 2015 trades on the Jays' popularity. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong cause: the Jays are experiencing a resurgence in popularity because they're heading to the playoffs for the first time in 22 years. The trades are one piece of the puzzle but there's a lot more to the Jays on-field success than that. isaacl (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, cause (trades) and consequence (winning) results in excitement. For this article, however, I wouldn't spend much more than two sentences per year, except in playoff/championship seasons. But this can, and should be discussed in depth at 2015 Toronto Blue Jays season and Alex Anthopoulos - given this trade deadline is very likely to be what AA will always be known for. Resolute 13:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Winning results in excitement, but the trades aren't the (sole) cause of winning, so I wouldn't jump to trades resulted in popularity. The trades did demonstrate that the Jays management were pushing for the playoffs this year, and so I agree more description in the season article is warranted. isaacl (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
At least the article is semi-protected for the duration of the postseason, which means that we won't have to worry about drive-by IPs adding too much information here. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Not the duration of the postseason: just until October 9. Now would be a good time to trim a lot of excess cruft that makes it here. For instance, the 2015 section mentions the minor league contracts signed by Jeff Francis, Ezequiel Carrera, Wilton López, Caleb Gindl, Jake Fox, and Daric Barton, all properly sourced. But why? What relevance do those minor league contracts have for the franchise as a whole? They've barely had any impact on the 2015 season. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I must agree that the cruft pertaining to the signing of minor league contracts in 2015 need to be cut from the main article for the same reason why signings of minor league contracts are not mentioned for the earlier seasons. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protection has been reinstated until the first few games of the 2015 World Series. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Owner subject in the infobox.[edit]

Hello, the Toronto Blue Jays' website lists Edward Rogers III as its chairman, as seen here. I don't know why the Blue Jays' article cannot list Rogers Communications as the owner, and then Rogers III as its chairman in parentheses (), similar to how the New York Yankees article is constructed. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summary, unless the chairman is prominent in running the team, I don't see a purpose to including this information. For the Yankees, the corporate owner is a family company of the chairpersons, and they are the ones controlling the franchise. For Rogers Communications, there is no indication that the corporate parent has any particularly strong involvement in team operations or that the chairman is involved. Thus it is misleading to list Ted Rogers in the infobox, as it implies a more direct level of control than actually exists in practice. isaacl (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I found another source that says that Edward Rogers III is the Chairman of the Toronto Blue Jays. It's found at Rogers' website. I also found this article from the Toronto Sun, which says "As we’ve said before, it’s Edward Rogers’ team. The man is the Chair of the Rogers Control Trust, which controls the majority of the voting shares of Rogers Communications Inc., which owns the Blue Jays." That seems to suggest that Ted Rogers has some level of control over the Blue Jays. I fail to see how the Toronto Sun article would mislead readers about the chairman of the corporation that owns the Blue Jays, and I also fail to see why Ted Rogers cannot be included in the infobox of the Blue Jays article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Companies like Rogers Communications own many companies; simply as a matter of logistics, it is impractical to list the chairperson of the parent company in each of these. Although individual circumstances can differ, in general, the day-to-day operations of public corporations are not managed by an individual chairperson. The board of directors makes large strategic decisions, the executive team makes smaller scale strategic decisions, and a lower level of executives create and execute plans to implement these decisions. For a company like Rogers, the Jays are just a small piece of their pie; for its board, the primary thing that matters is what content they can sell that derives from the Jays. Most readers will expect that if an individual is listed in the infobox as an owner, he or she is taking a personal interest in making operating decisions. Public companies don't work that way; they are owned by the shareholders. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
As Issacl said, corporations, by definition, are not solely owned by a president, CEO, or chairperson, but are owned by shareholders, despite corporations acting as a single entity. Rogers Communications is no exception. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, then I propose removing the chairperson information. isaacl (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Toronto Star article about the Jays article and myself[edit]

Read here

Should we mention my role in keeping this article the way it is? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I hate to be a killjoy, but, no, I don't think this is sufficiently notable to be included in this article. Plus it isn't very encouraging to the community, who has engaged in many edits to maintain this article, to single out one editor. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Isaacl. Your contributions are appreciated, but I don't think this belongs in the article. Mindmatrix 01:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Isaacl: @Mindmatrix: Although it has a reliable source, it turned out that it would be better just to remove it. We all write the Blue Jays article. It just happens that a journalist focuses on me. You could have contacted Oliver Sachgau personally, as he wrote the article. Here is his Wikipedia talk page, which has his e-mail: User talk:Staroliversachgau. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a great article, and it is kind of cool to see you get recognized for your work! However, the subject of this article is the Toronto Blue Jays, not the Wikipedia article itself. It wouldn't fit here, imo. Resolute 19:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the subject is the Jay's Wikipedia article, but it's too navel gazing to include in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
lol, I guess I was horribly unclear. I meant that the subject of the Toronto Blue Jays Wikipedia article is the not the Wikipedia article. the Toronto Star article, of course, was. Resolute 20:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah gotcha. Minor misunderstanding there. Totally agree with your point. It would be weird to write in the Wikipedia article, "with the Jays success came more vandalism..." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It belongs on this talk page with the {{press}} template, and printed up (either on your printer or the Sun‍ '​s) and taped to your door or bulletin board. It's not relevent for inclusion inside the article, but it's a recognition of your fine work that you should be proud of. Congratulations! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I added it at the top. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everyone! Go Jays go! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Location of the Kansas City Royals[edit]

At the end of the article under the 2015 season, the article incorrectly states that the Blue Jays lost the ALCS to the Royals in Kansas (footnote 38). The Kansas City Royals play in Missouri, not Kansas. LisaFelsman (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It has been fixed simply by using "Kansas City" instead. Kansas is the state, Kansas City is the city in Missouri (and in Kansas; Kansas City, Kansas is home to Sporting KC MLS team, while Kansas City, Missouri is home to the Royals and the Chiefs). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Bautista's Bat Flip[edit]

Do you think it should be added in this article or in 2015 Toronto Blue Jays season article? If it should be added, then an image of the bat flip should be added as well. What do you think? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

IMO, it might just be too trivial a detail for this article - though the home run itself belongs. Seems like the kind of thing the season articles exist for. Resolute 13:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not even sure the home run itself belongs in this article; I think it is a better fit for the season article. Regarding the bat flip, I realize it got a lot of discussion and will be remembered by Jays fans, but in the end it's "someone showboated after hitting a home run", and I don't think it's particularly significant to mention even in the season article. I think the mention in the ALDS article is sufficient. isaacl (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the home run fits on the basis of being the series-winning runs in Toronto's first playoff triumph in two decades. Resolute 23:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning the home-run on this page seems appropriate, since it was the most notable one in Blue Jays history since Joe Carter's walk-off shot in 1993. Bat flip is too trivial a detail, and is better suited for the game summary prose at the 2015 ALDS article. Canuck89 (have words with me) 07:38, November 9, 2015 (UTC)