Revision as of 03:24, 25 April 2011 editTrut-h-urts man (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers67,393 edits →"No hits, no runs, no errors"← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:41, 25 April 2011 edit undoKillervogel5 (talk | contribs)29,209 edits →"No hits, no runs, no errors": reNext edit → | ||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
:Jargon is to be explained for non-expert readers. ] says "Articles in Misplaced Pages should be understandable... to a general audience." This means an audience completely uninitiated in baseball. It's a simple thirty characters that harms no one and helps the non-expert. Note also that this is not an article about an individual perfect game; it's an article about a player, where a reader is not necessarily expected to understand the concept of a perfect game. I see no guideline- or policy-based reason to remove this information. — ] • ] • 19:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC) | :Jargon is to be explained for non-expert readers. ] says "Articles in Misplaced Pages should be understandable... to a general audience." This means an audience completely uninitiated in baseball. It's a simple thirty characters that harms no one and helps the non-expert. Note also that this is not an article about an individual perfect game; it's an article about a player, where a reader is not necessarily expected to understand the concept of a perfect game. I see no guideline- or policy-based reason to remove this information. — ] • ] • 19:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
::By that logic, this phrasing should then be used on every perfect game pitcher's page. It would be far more sensible to remove the phrase and be sure that "perfect game" is wikilinked, or an individual perfect game article is linked. ] (]) 03:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | ::By that logic, this phrasing should then be used on every perfect game pitcher's page. It would be far more sensible to remove the phrase and be sure that "perfect game" is wikilinked, or an individual perfect game article is linked. ] (]) 03:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::And that logic is not at all faulty: it should be included as an explanatory note in those pitchers' articles. The wikilink is not always sufficient. — ] • ] • 10:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:41, 25 April 2011
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Roy Halladay. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Roy Halladay at the Reference desk. |
Timing Issue / Anachronism
In the article it says:
In 1995, after graduating from Arvada West High School, he was selected by the Toronto Blue Jays in the amateur draft. Six seasons in the minors later, the strapping right-hander made the team and immediately proved his worth.
Career
1998
In his second career start, against the Detroit Tigers on September 27, 1998...
If he spent six years in the minors, starting in 1995, before he made the team, he could not have made his major league debut in 1998, could he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbqpossum (talk • contribs) 18:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The writer above is correct. I was at the game in 1998 where he got his first major league win against the Tigers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpoulter (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Halladay's Number for the Phillies
It will not be 32 because that number belonged to Steve Carlton and has since been retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistertug (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
PAge Needs To Be Protected
the trade is not official and people keep changing him to a Phillie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamrhein (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually the deal won't be official unless he agrees upon a contract extension
The Deal
{{editsemiprotected}}
It's not a three-way deal between the Phillies, Mariners, and Blue Jays. There are two separate deals: one involving the Phillies and Mariners, and one involving the Phillies and Blue Jays. Change "three-way trade" to "a trade."
- Not done Please provide a source to verify this. fetchcomms☛ 03:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- A 'three way' deal means for example: Player A goes from Team A to Team B; Player B goes from Team B to Team C & Player C goes from Team C to Team A. Has this scenerio occured? GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the Mariners had nothing to do with the Jays and likewise, so two different trades. BTW, the deal is official so the page may be unprotected now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.223.188 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Cliff Lee deal had a clause that it only goes through if the Blue Jay trade Roy to the Phillies. and vice versa. So they are linked. There was a rumour going around that one player failed a physical and that would mean NONE of the trades between these 4 teams would go through.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly; its just semantics, but the Phillies announced them in 2 separate press releases (Lee trade & Halladay trade. Neither would have happened with out the other, so I wouldn't make a big deal about it. ccwaters (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No-hit pitcher born on the same day a no-hitter was pitched
By pitching a perfect game on May 29, 2010, Halladay gained the distinction of being a no-hit pitcher who was born the same day a no-hitter was pitched. On the day Halladay was born, Kansas City Royal Jim Colborn no-hit the Texas Rangers 6-0.MrHaroldG2000 (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a ridiculous coincidence that doesn't belong on this wiki. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree Secret 00:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No different than the listing on Mike Jorgensen's page that he was the only player born on the same day Babe Ruth died. To my knowledge, Halladay is the very first such pitcher in this case. MrHaroldG2000 (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also a ridiculous coincidence that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Regardless, see WP:WAX; something existing is not justification for something else to exist. — KV5 • Talk • 11:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing to my attention the comment on Mike Jorgensen's page. I removed it because it, like this Halladay coincidence, is trivial and unencyclopedic. If something else similar exists, we don't make the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but we should see that example as an oversight and correct it. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Tweak when this is unprotected
I think "keeps hitters off balance" is better than "keeps hitters off pace". Fix that when the page is unprotected on 2010-10-14 (and remove this entry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrunchLingo (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Good call. — KV5 • Talk • 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Philadelphia Flyers
Let's not add details about the Flyers playing Game 1 of the 2010 Stanley Cup Finals the same time as Halladay's perfect game, although NBC replayed the final out. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 14:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The Halladays' religion
For some reason, the phrase "although they are now non-practicing" keeps getting removed from the "personal" section of this page. If we are going to report on someone's religion, ought we not reflect it most accurately? The same source (a Sports Illustrated article) used for the statement that they were raised as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ALSO states that they are now non-practicing.
Report it all or not at all.
- 1. Sign your posts, please. 2. Does it really matter? This is very trivial. Talk it out, but in the grand scheme, it's not important. — KV5 • Talk • 14:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
1. My apologies for not signing, it was an oversight. 2. Sorry for bringing up "trivial" matters, but apparently someone thinks it's important enough to keep changing it. I just believe in reflecting things accurately, that's all. Headtrip honey (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know it's in the cite. I've been watching this article. It's been a back-and-forth between several different IP addresses, and now yourself, that it keeps getting removed. If a consensus is established here, then it can be used to reinforce discussion or replacement of the information if it gets removed again. — KV5 • Talk • 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the importance in what Halladay's religion is. Only if he makes it a public issue should religion be included on any individual's page. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Muboshgu; the main reason for inclusion, I think, is the fact that it is a driving factor behind his philanthropy. But he hasn't made an issue of it personally, so I don't know if it's important. — KV5 • Talk • 14:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the importance in what Halladay's religion is. Only if he makes it a public issue should religion be included on any individual's page. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
2010 Cy Young
2K Sports their cover athlete, and they usually are in contact with baseball officials before deciding. Get ready for Halladay as the winner. JAF1970 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
New Picture
Can the main picture of Roy be of him as a Phillie? After all, he is a member of the Phillies, not the Blue Jays. It would be great if somebody could do this. Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- If there was a high-quality picture of him as a Phillie, it would not be a problem. The infobox image should always be that which shows the subject best (WP:LAYOUT#Formatting – "Unless clearly better or more appropriate images are available, the existing images in the article should be left in place" and other guidelines apply here). A blurry, grainy, or otherwise low-quality picture of Halladay in the infobox does a poorer job of illustrating the article than the excellent-quality picture of him as a Blue Jay that already exists. Trust me, if you can get to a game and take a great picture of him, I'm all for changing it at that time. But until then, the HQ Jays picture has to stay. — KV5 • Talk • 11:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
"No hits, no runs, no errors"
Including this in the article is completely unnecessary. Were a user to not understand what a perfect game is, they should simply search "perfect game". This phrase is not included in any other perfect game article (see Dallas Braden's perfect game, Mark Buehrle's perfect game, etc) nor their respective pitchers (see Dallas Braden, Mark Buehrle, etc). While we cant assume every user will know what a perfect game is, we also should not assume they're complete morons and can't look it up. This should be removed immediately. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Jargon is to be explained for non-expert readers. Misplaced Pages:Make technical articles understandable says "Articles in Misplaced Pages should be understandable... to a general audience." This means an audience completely uninitiated in baseball. It's a simple thirty characters that harms no one and helps the non-expert. Note also that this is not an article about an individual perfect game; it's an article about a player, where a reader is not necessarily expected to understand the concept of a perfect game. I see no guideline- or policy-based reason to remove this information. — KV5 • Talk • 19:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- By that logic, this phrasing should then be used on every perfect game pitcher's page. It would be far more sensible to remove the phrase and be sure that "perfect game" is wikilinked, or an individual perfect game article is linked. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- And that logic is not at all faulty: it should be included as an explanatory note in those pitchers' articles. The wikilink is not always sufficient. — KV5 • Talk • 10:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- By that logic, this phrasing should then be used on every perfect game pitcher's page. It would be far more sensible to remove the phrase and be sure that "perfect game" is wikilinked, or an individual perfect game article is linked. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (sports and games) articles
- Mid-importance biography (sports and games) articles
- Sports and games work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Baseball articles
- Mid-importance Baseball articles
- B-Class Philadelphia Phillies articles
- High-importance Philadelphia Phillies articles
- Philadelphia Phillies articles
- WikiProject Baseball articles