Talk:2010 Toronto Blue Jays season

Game Log

Just an idea; Should we put the Stadium name in the game log, beside TV? BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^{(TALK|JAYS)00:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)}

Summary

Would it be too much to have a game by game summary... I dont want someone to take it down for being "too much information"...

For Example...

Game 7 (Home Opener)

Team	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	R	H	E
Chicago White Sox	0	0	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	3	9	1
Toronto Blue Jays	0	1	0	0	3	0	0	2	x	6	11	0
WP : Romero (2-0) LP : Peavy (1-1) HRs: Hill (TOR), Lind (TOR), Dye (CWS)

(A game story (paragraph) would go nder the linescore, then a link to the box score on mlb.com will be posted as a refrence.)

Kind of like a football game summary on wikipedia.

I just want to know if anyone approves this, I think you can never have too much info, but users like it their way or they delete it even if non users (readers) approve, so I want to know now if anyone does not approve. Thanks, BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^(TALK|JAYS)

Instead of asking here, ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject Baseball so that this can be coordinated throughout all MLB team articles. For the record, I oppose this, except for playoff games. Wikipedia shouldn't maintain a list of boxscores. A single-line entry for relevant game details, as we've been doing so far, is more than sufficient. Mindmatrix 16:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Spring Training Standings

How about transfering the spring training standings to a template? It would reduce the size of the article and allow other MLB team sites to use it. Then you could also add that green high-lite function that high-lites the team in question (Toronto in our case) in the standings.Juve2000 (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You suggested this with the Wild Card last year, and it got deleted by Mr.SpeedyDeletey (Killervogle5). This would be unsucessful, and its not worth a try because with that guy its delete anything if it doesnt match any word in WP:RULES, WP:YOUMUSTDOTHINGSTHISWAYORSELS or WP:BRTGD. and I like the blue at the top anyways. I would if I could. BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^(TALK|JAYS) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just having read this section now, I will remind BlueJaysFan32 to refrain from personally attacking other editors. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Article issues

I originally left this note on the talk page of one of the editors, but it would likely have benefit from broader visibility. These issues need to be addressed:

• the introduction should contain only a summary of the information contained in the article - it is supposed to be an overview; here, we have specific details about the Halladay trade and contract, which doesn't belong - most of that paragraph should be shifted into a subsection (or deleted, since most of it is already in 'The Doc Deal')

Done

• the countdown clock - I've already voiced my opinion about this several times; the article should simply state that the season starts on April 4, not that there are X days until the season

Done

• addition of a brief explanatory paragraph to the 'Arrivals and departures' section (eg - number of trades, waiver acquisition, releases, etc.)

Done

• full citations - I had to remove a source because it is now a dead link, and didn't contain enough information to be able to find an archive copy; please use {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}} and similar templates to format the refs. If this isn't done, in the future someone may be unable to find the resource to verify the claims made, and hence delete the content it is supposed to support, so this is quite important. Here's a brief example:

<ref>{{cite web
  | url = http://www.example.com/2010/03/02/2010_Blue_Jays_greatest_team_ever!
  | title = 2010 Blue Jays greatest team ever!
  | last = Anthopoulous
  | first = Alex
  | publisher = Example.com Sports Reports
  | date = 2010-03-02
  | accessdate = 2010-03-08
}}</ref>

Done

• remove editorial content, such as "The Blue Jays have had quiet off seasons in the past few years, and if a big name is involved, it is often leaving Toronto.", "The Blue Jays have quietly made some moves with potential on the waiverwire", and "JP made mistakes of over-paying such players that underachieved with big contracts with a no-trade clause"

That is a non-issue. It happened, and it is clear info. if its something like "J.P. has made stupid moves in the past, like the signing of Vernon Wells. Wells has hit 20 home runs once since signing one of the biggest deals in MLB History. It iis regarded as the worst signing ever.".. then that is something we should focus on.

• significantly trim the rumours section; most of it was idle speculation by the media; anything directly addressed by the GM can be kept, of course

At the 2010 "State of the Franchise" Anthopolous answered Qs from fans. most fans asked about current rumors. and If you read some reports earlier, Anthpolous made a comment on almost all Doc Deal rumors. The Overbay trade was obviosly adressed, as AA called it off.

• remove empty sections (eg - player stats, which should be added at the end of the season)

Done

• move the timeline to be after the game logs (maybe) - this one will become long as the season progresses, and will monopolise the article)

Timeline is in a perfect position. It goes from offseason to season. Perfeect spot.

• hide the empty 2010 player draft table; restore it in June after the draft is complete

Its up there to show our draft spots. good info, and no need for deletion

• I'm not fond of the spring training schedule/results, but about 1/5 of the team 2010 season pages have this. Please discuss this on bluejays=yes to determine whether this should be included or excluded for all teams. We should have consistency for this item.

No, we shouldnt. 2010 Pittsburgh Pirates season,2010 Milwaukee Brewers season, and 2010 San Diego Padres season articles don't even have a game log yet. So if certain contrubutors are not there/not willing to contribute, then that should be thier problem. So if you want to bring up the spring training game log, and delete it from articles written by contributors who care, minus well bring up regular season game logs too, if you believe in consistency.

• trim the spring training summary to be about encyclopedic content only (eg - get rid of game summary info, such as "he pitched 2 innings, giving up 2 hits"); for what's kept, please eliminate capitalisation errors (eg - debut is capitalised several times for no discernible reason); get rid of spring training standings - it is irrelevant trivia

Done, ofcourse I put Doc's start against the Jays in there because of it's importance.

• the page is 120kB, which is absolutely massive; this doesn't include the images, which add to the page weight; something needs to be pruned or split off into another article

The Halladay article would be the best. I have added as much info as I can, which has come back at me, but if we are to remove something not about the doc deal, then you are removing information.

There's lots more, but these are the major points. Mindmatrix 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Replies by BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^(TALK|JAYS) 15:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with all of Mindmatrix' concerns, and I don't believe that most of the rationales provided above are satisfactory responses to valid inquiries (i.e., calling editorial content, which is forbidden and exists in this article in a large way, a "non-issue"). Succinctness is sometimes tantamount to completeness, just like verifiability is tantamount to truth; just because something happens or exists doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Roy Halladay information

This article needs to be shrunk. Perhaps we should move some information about Roy Halladay to his article, since he is with the Phillies this season. That way, this article can be made smaller, while Roy Halladay's article can be more comprehensive. Just my thoughts. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make this a new article. If this trade; which is nowhere near as big as The Doc Deal has its own article, then the Doc Deal should have an article about it too. I will include "rumors" and ofcourse, "The Doc Deal". give me the green light and I will make it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueJaysFan32 (talk • contribs)

The importance of that trade is not the players involved, but the significance of the trade itself. I don't think the Halladay trade warrants its own article, at least not right now. Mindmatrix 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a fairly significant event, for the off-season and for the club historically, so I think it belongs here. There's other material that needs pruning, though. Mindmatrix 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to bring up the Cliff Lee info. It had an affect on the Doc Deal. a sentence doesnt hurt anyone, and it would be useful. I agree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueJaysFan32 (talk • contribs)

Your snarky hidden comment isn't conducive to a useful conversation.

And no, the Lee deal had no effect on the Halladay deal, which was executed before. The converse is true though, that the Lee deal was executed as a result of the Halladay deal, but that doesn't belong in this article. It's the opposite of useful - it's useless tangential trivia. Mindmatrix 21:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I guess your opinion does not matter if you think this isnt a useful conversation BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^(TALK|JAYS) 00:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I said the hidden comment isn't useful, and isn't conducive to a useful conversation. I didn't state the conversation itself was useless. This is veering away from the topic of the article, and Wikipedia isn't a forum, so I'm not going to continue with this thread of discussion. Mindmatrix 01:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ok.BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^(TALK|JAYS) 02:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

A couple of things I think should be done with this article... I'd remove the entire "rumors" section.. the Halladay stuff is already covered in the "Doc deal" section and the rest is mostly original research or irrelevant. Also the long table of the comings and goings can probably go away.. most of the info is already in prose in the sections below it. Removing this sections would go along ways towards fixing the length issues with the article. Spanneraol (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That can be done. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

...

"The Blue Jays started the season with all-time regular season record of 2,589–2,632. The team was last above .500 on May 19, 1995, after a win at Tiger Stadium. They dropped to .500 the next day and fell below .500 on May 21 with a second straight loss to the Detroit Tigers."

Who cares? 142.162.69.117 (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Toronto Blue Jays season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707065112/http://www.5tooltalk.com/feature-freeagentdraftcompensation2010.html to http://www.5tooltalk.com/feature-freeagentdraftcompensation2010.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/jays---phillies-series-moving-to-philadelphia/article1564925/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)