This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Baseball: Blue Jays Mid‑importance 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto Blue Jays (assessed as High-importance). Canada: Ontario / Toronto / Sport Low‑importance 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Hoping to avoid an edit war. Sourcing for the game log is pretty hit-and-miss across the 2014 season pages. Here are the 2014 pages that do not source their game logs:

• Toronto
• Yankees
• LA Angels
• Detroit
• Kansas
• Oakland
• Cleveland
• Houston
• Minnesota
• Texas
• Cubs
• Pittsburgh
• Milwaukee
• Washington
• Dodgers
• San Francisco
• Mets
• Miami
• Philly
• Colorado
• Arizona

And these are the pages that have sourcing:

• Baltimore (MLB)
• Tampa Bay (BR)
• Boston (MLB)
• Seattle (MLB, but only the first three games)
• White Sox (MLB)
• St. Louis (MLB)
• Cincinnati (MLB)
• Atlanta (MLB)
• San Diego (MLB)

I think that we should source the games, and use the official MLB source over other sources. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 18:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a pressing need to source every entry in the gamelog... If you go back and look at all of the past seasons (not just 2014) few of them have individual sources for every game. It is possible to source the entire log to one location (baseball reference for example) and avoid having to add an entry to each line in the log.. that thing is already a pain to update as is... On the Dodgers page, which I maintain, I tend to source each game in the prose section so I didnt feel a need to duplicate that in the log. Spanneraol (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pressing need. "All content must be verifiable." The fact that those pages have MLB sources doesn't make it correct. The question here is what counts as a reliable source? The answer is the "type of the work," "creator of the work," and "publisher of the work." It goes on to state how "all three can affect reliability." When I added that reference column, I was thinking of the ESPN pages where they hold the game logs. The only other reference I had considered was baseball-reference.com. What we know is ESPN is a credible. Kingjeff (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MLB.com is a reliable source... but it still seems easier to have one source for the entire gamelog that points to a site like BR [1] rather than inserting a ref into each line of the log. Spanneraol (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MLB.com isn't independent. I think our options are espn or baseball–reference.com Kingjeff (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt need to be independent, just needs to be reliable. Spanneraol (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. It's more likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related the the material it's sourcing. Kingjeff (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a requirement for notability, not for sourcing. And how can these factual box scores have a "significant bias"? That makes no sense. MLB would be the best most acurate source for information about the results of MLB games. Spanneraol (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a conflict of interest because it's not independent. How do we know if they fact check, etc? We can't know for sure. Kingjeff (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can. Thats just ridiculous. You cant know "for sure" that ESPN fact checks either... but since the "official" stats for the record books come from MLB their numbers are what matters. Spanneraol (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to start the conversation and then go M.I.A. I agree that sourcing is important, and I was unaware of the BR page that Spanneraol provided. The page looks great and it's one-stop shopping for the entire season. I think placing the link to the BR season page satisfies both the need to source and Kingjeff's opinion that the sources should be independent of MLB (although I'm with Spanner on that one - MLB box scores are a reliable source). Since the BR page is so convenient it's hard to argue against it in favour of using an MLB or ESPN source for each game. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, then lets use it. Kingjeff (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is becoming unwieldy per WP:LENGTH, though to be fair, this is the first season in 22 years in which the Jays make it to the postseason.

It would be good to create a separate article for the Jays' resurgence and another for the Jays' 2015 postseason. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesnt seem all that long compared to other similar articles and no other season article is split as you suggest. Post-season details can always be included on the pages for the particular series. Spanneraol (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parts about the pre-season, as well as the first half of the regular season, can be truncated. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest (as does Johnny Au) pruning some of the material from the "Regular season" section. There's far too much detail for each month; for example, why describe what happened in the 8th inning of their second game? (Cecil's temporary demotion can be mentioned without such details.) Mindmatrix 15:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a summary of the postseason beginning with the ALDS? Right now, the Jays need to win every single remaining game for them to play in the ALCS. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a summary of it yes. Spanneraol (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A preliminary summary will be written upon the conclusion of the third game of the ALDS. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It is very skeletal though. It would need some more work. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is much more detailed and complete now, though not by me. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention the José Bautista Bat Flip? It is one of the more iconic images of the Jays' postseason run. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 17:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 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/20151113014334/http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/2015.shtml to http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/2015.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 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://archive.is/20141212023805/http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/11/02/blue-jays-adam-lind-timeline-the-hills-and-valleys-of-a-career-in-toronto/ to http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/11/02/blue-jays-adam-lind-timeline-the-hills-and-valleys-of-a-career-in-toronto/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20141101193026/http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/11/01/toronto-blue-jays-trade-first-baseman-adam-lind-to-brewers-for-right-hander-marco-estrada/ to http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/11/01/toronto-blue-jays-trade-first-baseman-adam-lind-to-brewers-for-right-hander-marco-estrada/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]