Talk:Roy Halladay

Timing Issue / Anachronism
In the article it says:

In 1995, after graduating from Arvada West High School,[1] 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.[2]

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
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."
 * Please provide a source to verify this.  fetch  comms  ☛ 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 account 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  14:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Cy Young
2K Sports [announced] 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 – "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. &mdash; 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. Make technical articles understandable says "Articles in Wikipedia 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  10:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So then we should backup the backup? Where does it end? Should we then wikilink and define what "hits" are, what "runs" are, and what "errors" are? Should it read "No hits (a hit being when a batter reaches base by striking the ball with the bat and running to a base, provided the ball is not caught by an opposing player, or the batter is not thrown out at the base he is running to), no runs (a run being when a baserunner passes home plate, either by running there when a batter gets a hit, being walked there by a loaded bases walk, stealing home, etc), and no errors (an error being a mistake made by a member of the fielding team that causes a run to plate or a baserunner to reach safely, etc). And then I guess we should put wikilinks in that explanation and further explain the wording, like batter, home plate, baserunner, walk, stealing home, base etc. The perfect game wikilink is sufficient. If not, where does it end? Trut-h-urts man (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter half of that fallacious argument isn't even worth addressing, due to WP:OVERLINK. But things like hits, runs, errors? YES, they should be linked on their first occurrence in the article. That is why we have articles on them, and they are relevant to the context. Common sense would dictate that certainly it is not necessary to explain every term in every article. This is not a dictionary, but neither is it a reference work written by baseball readers for baseball readers only. A balance is needed between serving the reader and writing in a summary style. It would be helpful to note that because "the majority of visitors are in fact readers – it is important that pages and articles are optimised for this readership" (from WP:READER). &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  23:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Halladay and the Hall of Fame
There has been been a lot of discussion amongst various baseball reporters in the past couple of years regarding Halladay's candidacy for the Hall of Fame, specifically postulating what he needs to do to ensure enshrinement (240 wins, 1k strikeouts, WS ring, etc) or whether he has done so already. Would it be worthwhile to mention such discussions in this article? I looked at other accomplished player's pages, active and recently retired, and saw no such discussion mentioned, although there is such a statement on Randy Johnson in the page on Perfect Games. That said, would a discussion on the cumulative accomplishments of a player, as well as an evaluation regarding how that rates amongst the baseball greats, be relevant? If so, would this page be a good place to set a precedent by including such a discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenggries (talk • contribs) 04:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's appropriate because it's all speculative and not verifiably encyclopedic. Regardless of whether sources traditionally considered reliable express opinions on the matter, they are inherently nothing more than speculation and shouldn't be included. Relevant policies/guidelines include WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE, among others. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  11:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It would, however, be appropriate to detail Halladay's legacy and qualifications relative to other HoFers. Bonehed (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Halladay as a Blue Jay
The right-hand biography bar should list his second stint as a Blue Jay, even if it was only for a day. His intent was to retire as a Blue Jay and, technically, he did. It's not accurate to show him ending his career on the Phillies. Adtrace (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to disagree with you. He was not officially placed on the 40-man roster, and did not play a game for the Jays in 2013 or 2014.  The usual criteria for listing a team in the right hand sidebar is that he played for the team. Cpfan776 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It should not be included in the infobox. This is just a "ceremonial" contract. His final appearance was with Philadelphia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting edits by banned user
At Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is, the policy says that "reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring." At Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions, the policy says that "reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users" is not a 3RR violation. At Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors, the policy says that "anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." At Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks, the policy says that "edits by the [blocked or banned] editor or on his or her behalf may be reverted without question". 99.224.51.134 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But, , and others are not editing as proxies, at least not until CU proves it. And you need to stop, or I will block you. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed: they're not editing as proxies. But they did question my reverts of the banned user, when the policy makes it clear I can revert the banned user without question. My understanding, as explained to me previously by an admin, is that other users are welcome to restore the edits if they stand behind them as their own. But they're not to restore simply on the premise that the edits seem fine or good enough or that they've done a spot check of some of the material in the edits. The policy is based on the principle that there must be a disincentive for banned users to continue editing. Otherwise bans aren't bans. The only disincentive is the knowledge that their work will be reverted. 99.224.51.134 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose they wouldn't reinstate it if they didn't stand behind it. So sure, you can revert the banned editor--but I do not believe that means you can revert the editor who reinstates it, at least not without breaking various EW rules. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit summaries made it quite clear that they didn't stand behind it. They were restoring the edits because they were questioning my actions, or challenging my right to make edits an IP, or because they had done some spot-checks of the work. There's quite a difference between saying "This is my work" and "I took a superficial glance at this banned editor's work and it seems OK to me." My understanding is that I can revert the banned user's edits "without question." Restoring the edits is clearly questioning my revert. I would also repeat what I said earlier: bans aren't bans if editors are allowed to continue editing. 99.224.51.134 (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Other editors have reverted you because they want the material to remain in the article.. A banned editors edits are not required to be reverted.. And since there seems to be some sort of history between you and the editor in question, you are far from unbiased here. Spanneraol (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

My last edit prior to departure. The banning policy also says, "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." (emphasis mine) - this is not an ambiguous case.  Go  Phightins  !  10:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP is no doubt making a reference to this edit summary by . "I'm not gonna let an IP lecture me on policy" is perhaps not the smartest thing to say, but it certainly is understandable since the IP was on 3R and was not (yet) discussing. That Spanneraol won't take a lecture from an IP is also somewhat understandable--I presume they'll take a lecture from me ("Spanneraol, please don't disparage IP editors") because in my case they can see that I've been around the block and probably know something about policy. With an IP editor that's harder to see, and these are, after all, edits and reverts based on arguments (or they should be), not simple vandalism reverts. But IP editor, you and I need to get something else straight. The 3RR exemption is built on so that one can revert a banned editor, or their socks. It is not there to willy-nilly revert anyone who restores. You cited that one can revert those acting "on his or her behalf"--and again, clearly that was not the case. Even without explanation on their part, you cannot assume that they are acting on the banned editor's behalf, and thus there is no 3R exemption. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy gives two examples of "obviously helpful edits" to guide us: reverting vandalism and fixing typos. The banned editor's actions do not fit into either of these categories, nor are they anywhere close. The edits have a huge impact on the article, introducing new factual material, sources, etc. They clearly do not fit the policy.
 * I note that no one has addressed the issue that gave rise to this conflict in the first place. The policy exists for one reason only: to deter banned editors from editing. So long as a banned editor's edits are allowed to stand, there is nothing to prevent him/her from continuing to edit. That is the central issue in this dispute. 99.224.51.134 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Four-seam fastball "rarely seen"
A previous version asserted that a four-seam fastball is rarely seen. In fact, many MLB pitchers, including 2014 World Series MVP Madison Bumgarner, throw a four-seamer. Deleted this statement. Bonehed (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Template
The recently-deceased template has been removed even though he died only two days ago and his name is still all over the news media. Also, the various investigations into the crash are still in their early stages and the chances of fresh information being leaked are significant. Perhaps the template should be restored for now? 174.89.94.204 (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Mayday calls
Did not no where to put this but... The article mentions 3 mayday calls. The only mayday call would be from the plane and their were none. Maybe 3 calls to 911 but that would not be a mayday call. He crashed suddenly. Can someone please correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:48:100:7210:3418:7118:F80C:62B0 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)