Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

franchise navbox behavior

Hello, there is a discussion at Template talk:Oklahoma City Thunder seasons in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Franchise navbox header formatting

The Category:National Basketball Association team specific seasons navigational boxes are generally consistent with City and Nickname formatting in the headers, but with minor inconsistencies among relocated franchises in use of spacing and hyphens. I've attempted to standardize this header text as:

  • [city1 nickname1]
  • [city1 nickname1] / [city2 nickname2]
  • [city1]/[city2 nickname1]
  • [city1 nickname1]/[nickname2]

Following this convention, the header text of relocated franchise navboxes now renders like:

  • Tri-Cities Blackhawks / Milwaukee/St. Louis/Atlanta Hawks seasons
  • New Jersey Americans / New York/New Jersey/Brooklyn Nets seasons
  • Fort Wayne/Detroit Pistons seasons
  • Philadelphia/San Francisco/Golden State Warriors seasons
  • San Diego/Houston Rockets seasons
  • Buffalo Braves / San Diego/Los Angeles Clippers seasons
  • Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers seasons
  • Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies seasons
  • New Orleans & New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets / New Orleans Pelicans seasons ‡
  • Syracuse Nationals / Philadelphia 76ers seasons
  • New Orleans/Utah Jazz seasons
  • Chicago Packers/Zephyrs / Baltimore/Capital/Washington Bullets / Washington Wizards seasons ‡
  • Buffalo Braves / San Diego/Los Angeles Clippers seasons
  • Seattle SuperSonics / Oklahoma City Thunder seasons

‡ These two do not easily follow the basic convention.

Feedback welcome. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The navboxes at Category:National Basketball Association team navigational boxes and Category:National Basketball Association coach navigational boxes only list the current name in the header. I could see WP:EGG being an issue if we don't list all the cities, e.g. 1969–70 San Diego Rockets season being confusing if only "Houston Rockets" was shown, while I can also see that "Chicago Packers/Zephyrs / Baltimore/Capital/Washington Bullets–Washington Wizards seasons" is a mess at Template:Washington Wizards seasons.—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@UW Dawgs: This makes sense to me, as far as standardizing the formatting in the template titles goes. Now that Template:Los Angeles Clippers seasons & Template:Oklahoma City Thunder seasons include the Buffalo Braves & Seattle SuperSonics seasons in the templates, respectively, I'd like to request an admin to please delete Template:Buffalo Braves seasons & Template:Seattle SuperSonics seasons. Both templates are unnecesary & redundant (because the list of seasons is included in both the Clippers' seasons template & the Thunder's seasons template. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
They are still being used e.g. see links to Template:Seattle_SuperSonics_seasons. Why not just redirect them like WP:MERGE suggests?—Bagumba (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm all for anything, so long as it's reached via WP:CONSENSUS & so long as it is consistent with other NBA season templates. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a weak consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_23#NBA_Coaches.2FFranchise_template to just have the current team name in the navbox's header. If there's no consensus to do otherwise, we should clean up the season naboxes to be consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Just list the current franchise name like the coach boxes. Look at that Wizards template. It is ridiculous. Rikster2 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that discussion narrowly about Head Coach Navboxes? Regardless, this convention seems to work upon inspection. We appear to have these main templates:
  • Template:City Nickname ("current")
  • Template:City1 Nickname1 / City2 Nickname2 / etc seasons
  • Template:City Nickname coach navbox
  • Template:City Nickname coach current roster

And we appear to stack the "primary" over the "seasons" navboxes in the team articles, like:

  • Template:City2 Nickname2
  • Template:City1 Nickname1 / City2 Nickname2 seasons

Which allows the a single "seasons" navbox to be reused for the franchises prior locations:

  • Template:City1 Nickname1
  • Template:City1 Nickname1 / City2 Nickname2 seasons

If we were to change the convention around the "seasons" navboxes titles, it would hurt the contextual render on the prior franchise locations. So the (occasionally verbose) status quo seems preferable. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is definitely not preferable - its hideous. Just list the former franchise names on the top line of the template (but not the header). Navboxes are about making choices with constrained space. Rikster2 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My vote is to put the current team name in the heading and divide up the locations/names with groups. Such as:

This doesn't use decades to arbitrarily divide up the box. Gets rid of the unnecessary whitespace in between the columns. Allows the reader to know the name/location history of a franchise at a glance. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Organization changes can be discussed independent of the title discussion (just want to make sure the title issues doesnt get sidetracked).—Bagumba (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm just presenting a solution that is the perfect compromise. Cleans up the heading and retains all the information that was previously included in it. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I like X96lee15's format. Rikster2 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say to put the current team name only in the heading. It's not perfect, but would rather have a simplistic title at the inconvenience of a few readers that might wonder why a seemingly different team's navbox is on the page.—Bagumba (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy and utility > Designing for edge cases.
My initial interest here was bringing two navboxes into standardization with the rest. Then a handful of additional edits around improved consistency in spacing, hyphens, and dashes as called out. To the extent this discussion has morphed into revisiting consensus for ONE type (of many Category:National Basketball Association team navigational boxes), that is great. But I'd suggest reviewing the team articles and that Category to see ALL type of NBA navboxes, before leaping. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
All NBA team franchises should use current name. They don't all need to be broken out by team like Lee's example (the coach navbox doesn't need the various names noted in it). The consensus I'd like to suggest is no Zephyrs/Capitols/BulletsWizards titles ever. Rikster2 (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Defunct franchise meaning

There is a discussion at Category talk:Defunct National Basketball Association teams in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Athletic and strength trainers on rosters

Any objection if we remove strength and athletic trainers from NBA roster listings? Looking at List of current NBA team rosters, most of them are not blue links, and nobody even bothers making it a red link, presumably because we all know they're not generally notable. This seems to follow WP:NOTDIRECTORY to not list employees "except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries". I'd disable the related code from Template:NBA roster footer.—Bagumba (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them.—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I have neither the time nor the energy to lead the charge, but the NFL current strength and condition coach navbox only has something like 8 or 9 blue links out of 32 current persons in those positions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I see all the "Super Bowl Champion" line items just added, and I tell myself I'm not the one to lead cleanup efforts at WP:NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
That NFL navbox for "current strength and conditioning coaches" is just clickbait for the creation of articles about non-notable topics. I really wish we could get rid of that one.
As for the "Super Bowl Champion" capitalization issues and similar problems, I started compiling a list of all the capitalization and other style and formatting errors I've encountered while I've been manually replacing Infobox NFL coach. I'm going to use it to set up an extended formatting tutorial for NFL biographies generally, and Template:Infobox NFL biography in particular. That way, our WP:NFL regulars can simply link to a particular section of the tutorial in their edit summaries when reverting/correcting the most common errors committed by our NFL interlopers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox for players

Hi,

There's currently an ongoing conversation regarding the infobox for players. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Player's previous teams. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Detroit Pistons number 1

Question. If the Pistons retired #1 for Chauncey Billups, which I remember the ceremony where that happened, why does Reggie Jackson currently wear #1 and how did that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizmichael (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That's because Jackson started playing for the Pistons before #1 jersey retirement ceremony was announced. Same goes for #3 Wallace/ Johnson and #10 Rodman/Monroe. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
There was some talk about Jackson picking a different number next season ([1]), but I'm not sure if anything ever came out of that. With special permission, players can use a retired number even years after the jersey has been retired (see Grant Hill in Phoenix), so there's some flexibility there. Zagalejo^^^ 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

DOB and birth place

Hi,

Is listing only Month/Year (April 2016) enough? I'm asking, because some user on some article keeps re-adding the incomplete DOB. He tried discussing it with me, but he didn't give any relevant arguments on why Month/Year DOB should stay. According to WP:DOB – Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources... So according to his Month/Year is not enough. Same goes to the same article subject's birth place. Only Country is listed. That's enough or City, Country is needed? Because there are many articles that don't list anything if only Country is known.– Sabbatino (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I would say, that month+year is completely fine, if date isn't known. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sabbatino, you have misinterpreted the guideline in question. I commented in more detail on your talk page. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Playoff appearances

There's an ongoing discussion regarding the infobox's | playoff_appearances = parameter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Playoff appearances. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Akeem vs. Hakeem Olajuwon

Is there any consensus regarding his name in the article before the 1990–91 NBA season? It is stated in his article – On March 9, 1991, he altered his name from Akeem to the more conventional spelling of Hakeem... 1986 NBA Finals, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 articles refer to him as Hakeem with 1986–87 being the only article referring to him as Akeem. Should his name be altered to correct spelling of that time or it should be left as it is now? – Sabbatino (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If treated like Kareem etc. then the spelling should be "Akeem" for articles referring to seasons before the name change historically. On leader lists, HOF entries, etc. that encompass his career they should use "Hakeem," and obviously any article referring to time aft the name change should also use "Hakeem." Rikster2 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree with all of Rikster2's points. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like I'll have to take a look when I have time. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Name alteration: Hakeem → Akeem

Article Status Article Status
1986 NBA Finals Yes 1985 NBA All-Star Game Yes
1984–85 NBA season Yes 1986 NBA All-Star Game Yes
1985–86 NBA season Yes 1987 NBA All-Star Game Yes
1987–88 NBA season Yes 1988 NBA All-Star Game Yes
1988–89 NBA season Yes 1989 NBA All-Star Game Yes
1989–90 NBA season Yes 1990 NBA All-Star Game Yes

Done. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wendell Ladner and the Nets

How should Ladner's #4 be treated? 2015–16 NBA guide lists it as retired, but according to Nets (at least that person mentioned in the article) – it isn't retired (there used to be an official statement from the Nets, but I can't find it anymore). And no mention of Ladner can be found on Nets' official website. Any thoughts would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: 2015–16 Nets media guide (page 251) doesn't mention Ladner either. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I think the team-specific media guide trumps the league-wide media guide for issues like this. That NY Daily News article seems to explain things. I'm not sure if there really was a formal public statement from the Nets. I'm guessing Stefan Bondy simply asked a Nets PR person for some clarification. Zagalejo^^^ 02:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems that it's pretty well explained at that article, which is used as a source for Ladner's article. Should probably be in a note at the Nets article, with the source. oknazevad (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Franchise infoboxes on current head coach articles

I have noticed that NBA franchise infoboxes have started cropping up on current head coach articles (such as Template:Phoenix Suns on Earl Watson's article). I want to see if there is a way to avoid doing this. In their current state, the current head coach, GM, etc. do appear on the franchise templates (along with the broadcasting team), but I thought that we had created the coach chronology templates (Template:Phoenix Suns coach navbox) in large part to get coaches off these templates so that an extra, fairly generic, template didn't exist on the articles. For a current head coach, they already have three templates denoting this status - their "current roster" template, the coach chronology template, and Template:NBACoach. I would like to propose that we take current head coach off the franchise template, and would further suggest that we consider removing other individuals as well (front office, broadcasting teams, etc). Basketball articles suffer from "over-templating" as it is and this feels wholly unnecessary. It definitely feels like we should take coaches off, and that is my formal suggestion, but let's discuss what is on the templates generally. It feels weird to me to go to Tim Kempton's article (for example) and then have to sort through a very long, generic "Phoenix Suns" template to figure out why he's on it (he's an announcer). Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Rikster, I support your proposal. Furthermore, a more comprehensive cleanup/redesign of the NBA team navboxes is in order. For one, the culture and lore sections are loaded with Easter egg nonsense. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Rikster2, and with Jweiss11. The NBA team navboxes are long overdue for an overhaul. I'm not saying that college football/basketball team navboxes are the gold standard, but they're damn good places to start when it comes to what is generally considered franchise infobox-worthy. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree that cleanup is in order. Looking at Template:Los Angeles Clippers, Template:Los Angeles Lakers, and Template:Cleveland Cavaliers, it seems the following generally should be done:

  1. Remove current coach
  2. Remove current administration: Information is available in the current season article
  3. Remove general mangers list: If it's notable per WP:LISTN, create a standalone list, and then the navbox.
  4. Retired numbers should include the players name and not expect readers to know the the players' numbers. Ideally, the retired numbers are likely notable enough for their own standalone lists, and can then have their own navboxes as well.
  5. Remove list of Naismith Hall of Fame inductees. Players could have insignificant stints, and not even have their number retired with given team. See also #Basketball_Hall_of_Famers_tables_and_other_historical_trivia_in_teams.27_articles.
  6. Culture and lore: Cleanup per WP:EGG; should not include links where the item is not a standalone article, e.g. "Lob City" piped to 2011–12 Los Angeles Clippers season
  7. Remove current media: Presuming Category:Lists of National Basketball Association broadcasters articles are relevant, those can be placed in a standalone navbox.

—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"misc" field in Template:NBA season

I never knew there was a |misc= field for Template:NBA season. Someone used it to add a note about players' rookie years or Kobe's final season in the infoboxes at 2015–16 Los Angeles Lakers season and 2014–15 Los Angeles Lakers season. Stockton's final season seems to have been noted forever at 2002–03 Utah Jazz season.

  1. Do we want to have rookie and final season's noted in the infobox? (I'd say no)
  2. What are the accepted use cases for using |misc=?

—Bagumba (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

1. No. Not in support of using it for final or rookie season notes.
2. I generally don't support 'miscellaneous' additions. If it's not structured and consistent across many use cases, then don't add it. Just becomes a grab bag that gets mis-used or over-used. If we can come up with exception cases for what it should be used for, then I would argue there should be specific labels, not 'misc', that get created and supported for all info boxes. --E bailey (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the division, conference, and NBA champions indicator was standardized in the template in 2015. However, 300+ articles still use misc for that and other info. They include "Atlantic Division Champions" at 1988–89 New York Knicks season, "20th Season in Sacramento" for 2005–06 Sacramento Kings season, "Eighth NBA Championship" for 1964–65 Boston Celtics season, etc. If someone is looking for gnomish work, feel free to covert to the standard params for the championships Afterwards, we can just delete |misc= support from the template, unless there is objection.—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think people generally know about MOS:OVERLINK. However, should we apply this to tables, such as awards winners, where players often repeat? MOS:DUPLINK allows that "if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." This makes sense, because we dont generally expect a reader to read a table from beginning to end, and have already clicked on a link beforehand if they were interested. One usually only browses the time period they are interested in. Without multiple links, one has to scroll or do a search to find the first mention to click on the link.

For WP:NBA, there is a strong precent to encourage duplicate links in tables. List of National Basketball Association awards is a Featured Topic. All of its lists are FLs, and they all repeat links in their respective table for both team and players that have received the award multiple times. At All-NBA Development League Team, Jrcla2 wants to unlink them, and has reverted DaHuzyBru and myself a few times, and has said All-NBA Team should remove duplicate links as well. He asked that someone else start a discussion.

Should we continue project and MOS precedence to allow duplicate links in tables?—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been implementing duplicate links in all tables that I have been creating of late i.e. Australian and New Zealand NBL awards, as well as NBA D-League. I personally do not agree with Jrcla2's reasoning of "By keeping players and teams linked only the first time they appear, it is cleaner and less arduous to sort through who's been selected before" and tend to agree with the reasoning above of "One usually only browses the time period they are interested in. Without multiple links, one has to scroll or do a search to find the first mention to click on the link." I vote yes to allow duplicate links in tables. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
For multiple winners, convention seems to be to denote with number of times won e.g. LeBron James (11). That seems to be the best of both worlds: link so people don't have to hunt for them, plus indicate repeat winners. Imagine going back at least 10 years to find LeBron's link.—Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Even more so with the D-League due to the player turnover and sparing stints. Billy Thomas, for example, is first linked in 2001–02 First Team, but then isnt seen again until 2007–08 Third Team. I had to use the find bar to check where Thomas' first mention was. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a reason that the exception for tables was written into the guideline in the first place, and it's exactly what Bagumba mentioned. A table is not necessarily read in order, and the distance between entries is inconsistent. Despite the claims is a gene more helpful to the reader to have multiple entries linked because they shouldn't have to hunt through the chart in order to find the link. The links should be restored. oknazevad (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Basketball Hall of Famers tables and other historical trivia in teams' articles

I have a question regarding these tables. Should Hall of Famers tables be kept in teams' articles? I remember last year some editors were discussing about removing all of them and converting them to prose, but nothing happened. I put much time in creating these tables for many teams; however, I don't think those tables bring anything good to the articles and just take unnecessary place. In my opinion, all of them should be converted to prose and put into a separate page. The best example is Boston Celtics' article which links to List of Boston Celtics accomplishments and records, where all records, awards and other historical trivia is placed. Any thoughts would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The last discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_29#Hall_of_Fame_tables_on_team_pages. I still maintain that players in a team's own HOF are what's notable for the main team page. Listing the Naismith HOF on team pages would include players that did not make a significant contribution (e.g. twilight of career, short stint, more notable in college).—Bagumba (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that I also expressed my opinion in that discussion and my views have changed since then. Furthermore, looks like Celtics' aren't the only ones that have similar pages – Category:National Basketball Association accomplishments and records by team. Those pages are just not updated regularly and aren't linked on teams' articles. On a different note, I agree that players in team's own HOF are notable, but do we really need a table for that? For example, NHL articles just list those players (or other personnel) as there many of them that are in the Hockey Hall of Fame and tables would just make problems. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think NBA team's really have their own HOFs (unlike MLB or NFL teams), so the team's retired numbers would be sufficient for the main team page.—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Some do (ex. - Phoenix Suns Ring of Honor), but it's not as common as baseball. Rikster2 (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems that all Suns with retired numbers are also in the Ring of Honor.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
They don't. Although Retired numbers could be considered as team's HOF as only the most important players are included there (well, most of them were imptortant). But that's not the point. As I stated above, Boston Celtics' article deals with this HOF, retired numbers and other things in the best way. You don't see anything unneeded and everything is kept tidy and pleasant to read. No unwanted tables (just imagine their HOF or Retired numbers tables in the article)... – Sabbatino (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Listing the Celitcs' retired numbers in the main article shouldn't be an issue. It's key information about the franchise that deserves a quick listing of the players, though certainly not the gaudy fonts currently at List_of_Boston_Celtics_accomplishments_and_records#Retired_numbers. The main article can be limited to just listing the numbers and players, with the rest of the details somewhere else (e.g. Boston Celtics retired numbers would meet WP:LISTN as a standalone article).—Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, it's not about the Celtics. It's about Knicks, Lakers, Warriors, 76ers, Pistons and other teams that have many accomplishments. All that stuff just takes unnecessary place and should be moved to List of (Team name) accomplishments and records. Celtics is just an example how to deal with all that. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Per reasons I stated already, I don't understand why retired numbers are considered "unnecessary" and need to be removed. Feel free to remove the HOF entires from the main team articles. However, do not move the retired numbers without establishing consensus. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that retired numbers should be removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't clear above when you stated "Boston Celtics' article deals with this HOF, retired numbers and other things in the best way" when the Celtics' article currently doesn't list the individual retired numbers. I'd be OK with moving accomplishments other than retired numbers to another article for each team.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Starting with Brooklyn Nets' article, I intend to remove Naismith HOF table and individual awards from the main Nets' article as both can be found here. And I'm thinking about moving Franchise leaders to the mentioned article, but I'm not sure about this movement at the moment. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I oppose any such removal. It's standard for every major pro sports team based in North America. Not just NBA teams, but MLB, NFL and NHL teams. It's clearly common and standard. (Heck, I think even some MLS teams, too.) In short, it's not trivia, but defining history for the franchise. Do not remove them, please. oknazevad (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Going by that logic Brooklyn Nets accomplishments and records should be removed. What's the point in listing the same info in two different articles? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it should. It seems to be a mis-formed attempt at splitting up the article per WP:SUMMARY, but the material wasn't removed from the main article afterwards. Regardless, splitting the history section per SUMMARY works better that that article and it should probably be removed as redundant. oknazevad (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: It'd be more compelling if you could explain why it should remain a standard. Other stuff existing already is not the reason.—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
As I said, these are defining aspects of team history. A team is defined in large part by the players on that team. And the most significant players are those whose careers lead to their number being retired by the team and/or election to the Hall of Fame. It just really defines the team in many ways. And it's one chart, not a huge area of real estate. Now I can definitely see getting rid of the space-wasting attempts to replicate the retired number banners that are seen at some articles like the Celtics in favor of a simple chart, but removing them from the main article outright seems a pointless way to make the information harder for readers to find. oknazevad (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
New to this thread, but have related concerns about what qualifies to appear in HoF lists on team pages. I think there should be some sort of policy for who can appear on these HoF lists regardless of where they end up living. I see team pages, like Golden State Warriors that list Pete Newell as a 'Contributor' in the Hall of Famers section. Pete Newell is a HoFer and he did work as a scout for the Warriors, but never as a head coach or player. It seems over zealous to add him as a 'Coach' of the Golden State Warriors who is now in the HoF. Lists of HoFers on team pages could explode if the criteria is that minimal. Also applies to Dick Vitale on Detroit Pistons page and Wayne Embry on Cleveland Cavaliers page. IMHO, I would propose that someone who made the HoF as a player and then coached later in their careers, should not appear as a HoF Coach on a team page - as Dave Cowens does on the Golden State Warriors page. If you made HoF as a player, then you can show up on team pages for teams that you played for. If you made HoF as a coach, then you can show up on tame page for teams that you coached for. Otherwise I don't think one should appear on those lists in the other categories.--E bailey (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@E bailey: The goal of any article is to educate but not overwhelm a reader that knows little about the subject. Listing key players to the team's history would be part of that, and I don't think anyone would argue that retired numbers show who the team deems important to their history. I doubt if they are many cases where a key contributor to a team is in the Basketball HOF but did not have their number retired. At the same time, there is a growing number of HOFers who had brief, nondescript stints on teams, typically in their twilight years. For example with the Los Angeles Lakers, that would include players like Dennis Rodman, Gary Payton, Karl Malone, and Mitch Richmond in recent history, and a few more from further back. The same case applies to many other teams. I see little benefit to bloat the main article with HOF trivia that would exaggerate the importance of some of these HOF players to a specific team. The key HOF players generally also have their number retired, so the full HOF list for a team either has redundant members, or has players insignificant to the team's history. The best place to note all HOF players would be at Los Angeles Lakers all-time roster (already done) or Los Angeles Lakers accomplishments and records (if need be).—Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
To clarify and get back to the original point of the thread... I support keeping HOFer and Retired numbers on the main article. I agree with the argument that these are key parts of the identity of a team and their history. I was just trying to bring up and clarify who qualifies to be on the HOFer list. I like the way the current Los Angeles Lakers article is structured with HOFer and retired numbers still part of the main article and the list of accomplishments and records broken out as a separate page. I support making that the standard for all the other NBA team pages. --E bailey (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. If it wasn't clear (not that we have to agree), I do support removal of HOF from main article; it includes trivial mention of players with little impact for particular teams (see Lakers examples), and retired numbers is a better indicator of impact for a specific team.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
As a person who created about 60% (or maybe more) of these HOF tables, I would have no objection in removing them or making them into a list. It just takes a lot of space which can be used for better purposes. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
A certain user has again added a HOF table (this time it is the FIBA HOF). And looking at that page there's a lot of unneeded stuff which should be moved elswhere. Head coaches tables should be converted to prose as every team has a separate page for that and there's no point in listing the same information twice. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's kind of a stalemate AFAICS. Maybe we can get some regulars here like Rikster2, TonyTheTiger, DangerousJXD, DaHuzyBru, UW Dawgs, and Zagalejo to comment in hopes of reaching a consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Let me confirm that NBA players don't have to choose a team of affiliation like baseball players do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

My initial proposal was to make those HOF tables into lists. That's because of teams like Celtics, Lakers, Knicks and all older teams that have many players/coaches/contributors, but to keep it fair, every team should have a HOF list instead of a table. My main example would be New York Rangers#Hall-of-Famers (Hockey Hall of Fame). Imagine how would that table look like and it becomes clear that a list is the better choice in dealing with this issue. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As I see, there's no conclusion to this issue. There's a new issue with this kind of tables, which is the addition of City/State Hall of Fame tables. I understand that Naismith/FIBA HOF tables are relevant, regardless of me wanting to convert them into lists, however I can't say the same about other HOF tables as seen here. In my opinion, that is in no way related to the teams and doesn't add anything good apart from more unnecessary trivia. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

HOF-list poll

Question: Should an NBA team's main article (e.g. Los Angeles Lakers) contain a list of former team members who have been inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame?

Yes
  1. Yes. The current NBA treatment is at parity with the other major North American professional sports leagues. MLB: New York Yankees#Hall of Famers which includes Randy Johnson (2005–2006), NHL: New York Rangers#Hall-of-Famers .28Hockey Hall of Fame.29 and Glenn Anderson (1993–94), and NFL: New York Giants#Pro Football Hall of Famers and Don Maynard (1958). There is nothing unique to the NBA treatment and no reason to change it resulting in inconsistency with the equivalent pro leagues. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    @UW Dawgs: WP:OTHERSTUFF is usually not a compelling reason, unless it can be explained the reasoning why those projects decided to include random HOFers that have little impact to the team's history. Randy Johnson is never getting his number retired with the Yankees, and Don Maynard is not even in the New York Giants Ring of Honor.—Bagumba (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    Hall of Fame membership content has been included for over 10 years per the Lakers example within the question. Ditto, Celtics for 10+ years. I find the content to be utterly obvious for inclusion, as do editors in similar leagues who also experience the occasional player of dubious relevance to the listing team article as I noted. I see neither benefit, nor justification, for breaking this long-standing consensus to arbitrarily suppress the most talented players associated with a team from that team's article. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    Lakers and Celtics are a skewed example, because they have so many number numbers on that list—a real indicator of impact on the team—that it makes a "dubious" player on the list only seem "occasional". Try looking at the LA Clippers, Dallas, Cleveland, Milwaukee ... and I wont bother with more recent expansion teams, which would be a real joke. Lakers and Celtics aside, probably 25-50% of people on those lists are of dubious impact to the respective team. The team's "most talented players" who are actually HOFers is redundant to a team's retired numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    I also disagree with your statement re the overlap of the team's retired numbers and the national HOF due to different selectors with different motivations and criteria. Regardless, if player relevance to the article is the problem you're trying to solve, then we should be discussing criteria for inclusion/exclusion from the HOF section of the team articles, rather than the abitrary removal of ALL HOF players from ALL team articles -which I do find absurd. Majority or plurality of years with team, more than X seasons with the team, and similar criteria across the project would achieve that goal. But that's not the proposal being offered. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    For the retired numbers, we could mark the ones that are also in the HOF. So your concern would be HOFers whose numbers were not retired by the team, but you feel made a significant contribution to the team. I would argue that if the team didn't retire their number, they weren't important enough. Still, do you have player examples you want to discuss? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Players that made the HoF are, in many cases, the face of the franchise for an era. They are an important representation of the franchise. No, not all players on a team's HoF list are very notable to that franchise. These lists do not fit the criteria of WP:SPINOFF. WP:SUBARTICLE mentions some criteria, but I don't think any of those criteria apply to this question either (size guideline seems completely out of date and not being followed). Is there some enhancement that would be done to these lists when they are broken out? or is this simply a move? What sort of summary would be left in its place on the franchise page? --E bailey (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    For the Lakers, it's already at Los Angeles Lakers all-time roster and Los Angeles Lakers accomplishments and records.—Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Yes. I'm not prepared to get into a long back-and-forth, but I really don't have a problem including Hall of Famers in the main articles. Even for teams like the Celtics and Lakers, the list won't be that long. If it gets to the point where we're talking hundreds of players, then maybe we'll need to make some changes, but a sensibly-formatted HOF list should fit in any team article. And note that some teams are stingier about retired numbers than others. Looking at the Chicago Bulls, there are several Hall of Famers who made major contributions as Bulls who haven't had their Chicago numbers retired (eg, Chet Walker, Artis Gilmore, Dennis Rodman). Zagalejo^^^ 03:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Zagalejo: Length is not my concern, it's relevance when a lot of players didn't really have an impact on all the teams they played for. This will only be more of a problem with modern day free agents, e.g Shaquille O'Neal for any team but Orlando and Lakers, Kevin Garnett with the Nets, Allen Iverson with Memphis, Dikembe Mutombo with the Nets, Knicks, and Rockets, etc. Those Bulls' players you mentioned had short relatively short stints, which hampers them getting their number retired. And HOFers Nate Thurmond, George Gervin, Robert Parish, and Guy Rodgers had little impact on Bulls history.—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    Pount of order: this is a poll. You shouldnmt respond to every body else's !vote. That's WP:BLUDGEONing. You've had your say in the "no" section. oknazevad (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Yes. I think that there is encyclopedic content in such a listing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Yes, per my reasoning above. oknazevad (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
No
  1. No. Lots of HOFers these days finish their careers with multiple teams where they had minimal impact (e.g. Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Dennis Rodman with the Lakers) in their twilight years. Some are even in mostly for their college career (e.g. Ralph Sampson) or international career (e.g. Šarūnas Marčiulionis). The players with the most historical impact are the team's retired numbers. HOFers who are former players/coaches are trivial in a lot of cases, and at best redundant with the team's retired numbers. HOFers can be listed instead in the all-time team roster (e.g. Los Angeles Lakers all-time roster).—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. No. Everything regarding HOFers, awards and similar stuff (retired numbers are not included) should be moved to pages similar to the ones listed in Category:National Basketball Association accomplishments and records by team. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Input requested on WNBA draft templates

All- Trying to reach consensus on how many rounds should be displayed on yearly WNBA draft templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball/Archives/2020/April#WNBA draft templates. This discussion could use more and broader input to get to a guideline. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Generic guards and forwards

For players that play both SG and PG, or SF and PF, should we enumerate each position in their infobox (e.g. Point guard/ Shooting guard) or just the generic position (e.g. Guard)? Listing each one makes it explicit that they play both without the reader having to guess, while the generic format is shorter but ambiguous if, say, a listed guard is really just a PG. Remember, only recently have we added specific positions, so Elgin Baylor, a SF, continues to be listed as just "Forward". If space isn't an issue, I'd say list the two positions. An exception would be ones like GF or FS, I don't want to see "Small forward / Power forward / Shooting guard"—use "Guard / Forward".—Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree specific positions but not to list three if a generic G/F can keep it to 2 for space reasons. Rikster2 (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I also agree on that. Listing just Guard, Guard / Forward or anything like that should be enough as people sometimes like to label players with wrong positions. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
That's not actually what I was suggesting. I think we should use the specific position (eg "shooting guard") where known except in the case Bagumba mentions where one might be tempted to list three positions - there I favor abbreviating with the generic position. Rikster2 (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I too am with Bagumba and Rikster2. An example being Giannis Antetokounmpo. Basketball-Reference now list him as "Small Forward and Shooting Guard and Point Guard", and with the PG buisness going around regarding Antetokounmpo, many were adding "Point forward" or just "Point guard", so I instead went ahead and added "Guard / Forward" because he's a bit like LeBron at this point – he could play anywhere from PG to PF. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks like double standards for me. For Player X we list point guard, because he plays in that position. However, Player Y plays as a shooting guard / small forward so we list just guard / forward. That's unfair, silly and absurd. We either list only guard, guard / forward or point guard, shooting guard / small forward. We need to keep consistency through all articles, because later some user comes and sees that all pages list positions differently and starts doing his/her thing which can lead to edit warring... – Sabbatino (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Sabbatino – no one is suggesting we discontinue "shooting guard / small forward", we are suggesting ousting the usage of "point guard / shooting guard / small forward" i.e. three positions. Bagumba said "I don't want to see "Small forward / Power forward / Shooting guard"" and instead suggested for that case "Guard / Forward" would do. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear. Generic only comes into play to avoid listing 3 or more positions. Rikster2 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In all honesty I think we should just emulate the NBA and most media and use generic positions. It is a little simpler. I know some players do play one designated position (i.e. Russell Westbrook is a point guard and a PG ONLY), but we can simply say their specific positions in their opening paragraphs so readers can still link to the positions if they want to learn more. For example Kobe Bryant's infobox can say only "Guard", but one of the first sentences of his article can state "He has started at the shooting guard position." Allen Iverson and LeBron James' articles are good examples of this esp since Iverson played both guard positions and James plays both forward positions. This is just my honest opinion. IT would make classifying infoboxes alot simpler: either chose Guard(G), Forward(F) or Center(C) and if a player does more than one than a slash is more than sufficient. 2601:82:C001:12D0:55:AE4:174D:5B21 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Completely removing the usage of PG, SG etc would not go down well. It would never catch on with drive-by editors (it's already difficult enough as it i.e. Giannis Antetokounmpo has now been changed to "Guard / Small forward"). Over the past fews years, Wikipedia roster templates moved to just G, F & C instead of PG & SG, but for infoboxes, that's a no from me. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Even if regular editors on this WikiProject wanted generic positions, its been a matter of fact that IPs and editors not active on the project are going to be adding the verifiable (even if not sourced) specific position. Allowing it for the most part is just a practical compromise to avoid an endless slow edit war.—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
So the general consensus seems to be to keep specific positions (Which I still disagree with). I still think this is messier, but what will we do in the event that a player plays multiple positions (i.e. both guard positions and one forward, or both guard and both forward postions?) Will we write "Point guard/Small forward/Power forward? OR some thing along those lines Banan14kab (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that was addressed earlier - "Guard / small forward" or "Shooting guard / Forward" or similar. We should hole it to one or two entries max. It's also still fine to use "Guard / Forward" if that's cleaner or if the specifics aren't known. Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

AFAICS, there is no new consensus to change players that play both forward positions (SF/PF) to be listed as a generic Forward, nor to list players that play both guard positions (PG/SG) to be listed as a generic Guard. Above, Banan14kab acknowledged that "So the general consensus seems to be to keep specific positions". However, Banan14kab continues to revert this for Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Jason Terry, and Kirk Hinrich. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". I'm not sure why these reverts with no consensus are continuing.—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Banan14kab is aware there is a discussion going on (he's contributed) so this is out of line. There clearly ISN'T a consensus to consolidate (for example) "shooting guard / point guard" to "Guard." In fact, there are probably more votes the other way. He/she needs to cease and desist. Rikster2 (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess it was some misinterpretation on my part. I thought that the specific positions were just for the players who soley play one position. If we aren't using generic positions anymore then several other articles such as Iverson's Lebron's and more need to be changed. Just say if generic positions are eliminated altogether. It's still too ambiguous/annoying at this point. And for the record I'm male...Banan14kab (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
We haven't and are not going to eliminate all together the use of generic positions. The original point of this discussion was to address the use of "point guard / shooting guard / small forward" i.e. listing three positions in the infobox. How we got so badly off course has befuddled me. Jason Terry (for example) has always been a shooting guard first, point guard second. The position listed first is generally the primary position. Just because both are listed there doesn't mean we should or have to change it to "guard". The use of "point guard / shooting guard" or "guard", or "small forward / power forward" or "forward" should be situational. LeBron has previously had "guard / forward" which covers all bases – it's hard to use LeBron as an example because his position field is always being amended. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Well at this point it seems specific positions are favorable over generic ones. Listing three position is definitely overkill and should be the only time generic positions are used. Otherwise everyone seems to prefer specific ones, which even I've come to agree with. It's just easier and makes sense. Even if a player plays both guard positions or both forward positions, using generic positions aren't necessarily needed. We need to establish a final ruling for every situation so this can finally be over with. I'm tired of being accused of edit-warring and vandalism when I thought I was doing what was best for the articles just as I do on every wiki site I've edited on. Also for the special case of LeBron, he plays similar to a guard, but is official a forward and has been at the forward positions his whole career. He's an unofficial "guard" because he can pretty much do everything. That's why people say he's like a point-forward (an informal term). Banan14kab (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"We need to establish a final ruling for every situation": Be careful. I think you've summarized the general rule, but it's not to say there can't be exceptions. One of the Five Pillars is "Wikipedia has no firm rules". There can be exceptions, but they are subject to consensus, not constant reversions. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

List of (insert team) seasons

Season Team Conference Conf.
Finish 		Division Div.
Finish 		Wins Losses Win% GB Playoffs Awards Head coach
1974–75 1974–75 Western 4th Pacific 2nd 43 39 .524 5 Won First Round vs. Detroit Pistons, 2–1
Lost Conference Semifinals to Golden State Warriors, 4–2 		Bill Russell

Just look at the Playoffs column. It now suggests that they lost and won at the same time. This mistake (I think it's a mistake) can be seen in every NBA team's article. Or is this the common practice at List of [insert team] seasons articles? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get it. It says they won the first round series to Detroit and then lost the conference semifinal round to Golden State. So they won one round and then were eliminated. Is there a different way you'd suggest getting this same information across? Or would you suggest displaying different information in this column to denote their playoff standing? Rikster2 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to Lost Conference Semifinals to Golden State Warriors, 4–2. Shouldn't it be 2–4 instead of 4–2? – Sabbatino (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
IMO, it should be "4–2" since that's how you'd say it in prose: "Seattle lost in the conference semifinals to the Golden State Warriors four games to two". — X96lee15 (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
But this is not in prose. Lost means it was 2–4 and not the other way around. What the regulars – Bagumba, Rikster2, TonyTheTiger, DangerousJXD, DaHuzyBru, UW Dawgs, and Zagalejo – think about this? I already changed this at List of Seattle SuperSonics seasons and even got a thank you from UW Dawgs, so I suppose this is correct? – Sabbatino (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
In general, the bigger number should always go first i.e. were defeated 100–99, or lost the series 4–3, but for a table, it would make more sense to distinguish the loss from the losing team's perspective – so in this case, 2–4. I'm personally not an NBA season table guy, so I don't really care either way, but I tend to agree with Sabbatino. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of passion around it, but given a preference I'd say that I also agree with Sabbatino. I personally don't think there is much confusion either way, though. Rikster2 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the higher number first, but notice that in college basketball team season articles for games lost the lower score seems to be first. I guess this is consistent with that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I think it's perfectly natural to list the larger number first, but as long as we're internally consistent, I'd be OK with either format. Zagalejo^^^ 00:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I see no-one opposes, so I will start changing this when I have more time. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Masai Ujiri

There are a whole bunch of news articles describing Masai Ujiri as the first African-born GM in a major US sports league. But according to this, he was actually born in Bournemouth, England, leaving when he was 9 months old. It seems to me that he is not technically "African-born". Any thoughts on how to proceed with this article? Zagalejo^^^ 00:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

NY Times also mentioned being born in England.[2] I don't know enough about him to have a strong opinion. WP:BLP says, "We must get the article right", so one option is to not mention anything if there is reasonable doubt; place a note on the talk page for future reference. Alternatively, you can just have the article state the inconsistencies, and have the reader form their own opinion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd leave it blank, because while the majority of the sources say "African-born" or "born in Nigeria/Zaria" (including nba.com), this source mentions "He was born in England but moved back to Nigeria at 2, Ujiri told Vic Lombardi of CBS 4 Denver on February 26." That is also what the nytimes source claims. It is a pretty glaring contradiction. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 NBA draft article

There has been a great deal of activity on this article through the draft declaration and combine process. To the extent that early entry candidates have been broken out into lists of those who attended the combine vs. those who didn't. Over time, where the article will primarily be referenced to see who was picked where, I feel like some of this stuff needs to be taken out, collapsed, etc. It's not really an article about the draft combine. Thoughts? Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I know this IP is fixated over the draft combine. Later down the track would be a good time to clean it up. It's a bit like the summer league – too much attention is being put on the draft combine. No one really cares about the it and it shouldn't be so prominent in the draft article. If you compare 2016 to 2015 article, there is a two-sentence section on draft combine, and quite frankly, that's all that's really needed IMO. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, there are a lot of things related to the NBA that get undue coverage. Another aspect of the combine are the measurements - some users get really jazzed about changing players' heights to match them. But the fields are "listed height" and "listed weight" and the player will most likely never be listed at those measurements even if they are "correct" (though they don't take into account shoes, etc). To me the correct thing to do would be to keep the measurements officially "listed" by their colleges and then convert to the measurements officially "listed" by their new pro team. But I am not going to worry about it until the new measurements come out. I am going to revert measurements for the kids like Justin Jackson who went back to school. His "listed" measurements are those by his current team, period. Rikster2 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd !vote to remove the combine categorization. Not all that significant long term, and it's pretty much unsourced in the current article. Agree that listed height is associated more with a player in sources than their "actual" height.—Bagumba (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Coaching trees

There seems to be a growing trend of adding sections like Flip Saunders#Notable players and coaching tree that list any any all coaches that played or coached under someone. I don't think this is generally notable, and it just seems trivial unless there is supporting prose that explains how a coach was considered a mentor. What do others think?—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is pretty clear on this – trivia. That user added these trees to many articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Removed this kind of trivia from various articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Something needs to be done with the user that created them. Today this same crap was re-added to Brad Stevens' article. Of course I took action and removed it again. That user ignores all warnings and just blanks its talk page without any discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Individual awards at [team article]

Does this have to include NBA Player of the Month, NBA Coach of the Month and NBA Rookie of the Month awards? All of these awards are covered in each team season's article. They aren't notable to have such honor, because 1 or even 5 years later no-one will remember that Player X got Something of the Month award. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Since no-one shared their opinion, I removed these awards as they are not notable and not needed. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your action. Rikster2 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Teams captains

Some relatively new user added |captain= parameter to various NBA teams' infoboxes (and some European teams). Of course I removed them. However, I want to know if such parameter is useful at all? Any thoughts? – Sabbatino (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty questionable. Unlike hockey and soccer, which require the naming of a captain (at least on a game-by-game basis), there's no such formal requirement in basketball, though some teams do honor a team leader with such a designation, but it has no formal in-game role. Since it's not something every team has, and not something any team needs, I don't think it needs to be in the infobox. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is no such requirement in basketball. Even NBA teams' official websites don't show who is the captain. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:NBA championship seasons CfD

Jrcla2 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Anderson Varejão

News outlets are reporting that no matter the outcome of the 2016 NBA Finals, Anderson Varejão will be a champion. These two specifically [3] [4] are stating that because Varejão played on the Cavs and the Warriors in 2015–16, he is guaranteed to receive his first NBA ring. I disagree with this analogy. If the Cavs win, just because Varejão was a Cav during the season, doesn't mean he's a champion Cav. That would mean any player who was on a 10-day contract with a subsequent championship team, or any player who was waived during the season, would be a champion, and that doesn't make sense. Should Malcolm Thomas (basketball, born 1988) be deemed a champion because he played one game for the Spurs in 2013–14? No. If Varejão becomes a champion because he was a Cav during the season, that should mean Joe Harris (basketball) should be deemed a champion too. Is it not only those on the 15-man Finals squad that are deemed champions? Damion James, for example, was a champion Spur in 2014 because he was on their squad despite him not suiting up once. This Varejão nonsense is ridiculous in my opinion. Thoughts? DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. There's no logic behind this claim. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
A player needs to be on the playoff roster to get a ring, be considered a champion, etc. Rikster2 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I presume the main concern is with a player's infobox listing "NBA champion"? If a ring is really the criteria for that, I'm almost certain the team can decide whoever they want to give one to. And I think LeBron was close to him, which can't hurt his chances. What if GS gives one to Kevon Looney, even though he won't play in offseason? These are bit players, so it makes it easier to discount them and not call them champions. It'd be a more compelling argument if we were talking an All-Star or future HOFer who suffered a season-ending injury and never played in playoffs.—Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well Looney, like Damion James, is on the playoff/finals roster, so that is not the concern here with Varejão. Caron Butler is a good example with the Mavericks. He is deemed an NBA champion even though he sat out the entire second half of the season for the Mavs in 2010–11. If the Cavs win, it doesn't make Varejão an NBA champion. Sure the Cavs may physically give him a championship ring for old times sake, but that doesn't make him a champion i.e. having "NBA champion" in the infobox. There wouldn't be many cases though when an organisation just hands out a championship ring to a player who might have contributed to the team at some point but wasn't on their playoff roster. Any one know of an example when this has happened? Or will Varejão become the first? DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This should explain everything. I guess there is no need to discuss this further. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Good find, Sabbatino. Common sense prevails. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a pretty obscure example, but Wayne Kreklow got a ring for playing with the 1981 Celtics despite being waived in January 1981. [5] And Elgin Baylor was given a ring for the 1972 Lakers championship after retiring mid-season, although I guess he remained with the team in a front office role. [6] Neither player is listed as a champion in the infobox, which I think is the right thing to do. Zagalejo^^^ 00:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Basketballfan12 - creating non-notable NBA bio stubs

I am about to go on vacation for almost a week and won't be on Wikipedia, but I just noticed User:Basketballfan12 is creating lots of non-notable NBA personnel's stubs. They're incomplete, reference-less, category-less, etc. Can someone please jump in and educate him on how to make a notable biography, and to learn how to create one more correctly so no more kittens are spread everywhere? Jrcla2 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There is seriously no point in trying to reason with this user. They never respond to talk pages requests/notices, have never gotten any better with their editing style, and continue to create poor articles with no regard for the community or guidelines. Just look at the history on NBA Development League – they never use the preview button despite many warnings, and they recently blanked their entire talk page, so they obviously know about the talk page but just choose to ignore it. Some of them have been put up AfD, but not enough users have voted on them. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a block will suffice? Not a permanent one, but one that will get the point across. My money is this is a middle school student...he exhibits that sort of mentality. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I've asked the editor to take a temporary break from article creation while AfDs on a few of their creations are outstanding. We'll have a better idea on the situation once the AfDs are closed. If anyone feels a block is justified now, please supply more evidence in the form of diffs. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I gave this guy guidance several times last year (example) and ultimately resorted to warnings, which caused him to at least add categories. But he's back to his old tricks. DaHuzyBru is correct that they don't respond, engage or change behavior. I recommend warnings then following normal block procedures if the behavior persists. Dude keeps creating D-League aricles and how he formats changes with every new article. A mess. Rikster2 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I would suggest for the concerns raised here. Per WP:CIVILITY, editors are expected to respond to good faith questions. Repeatedly failing to do so could result in a block. Before proceeding, I would expect to see diffs to discussions showing multiple requests with no good faith responses. If the AfD closes show a pattern of questionable article creation, a WP:TBAN might be order on basketball article creations. That could be requested at WP:ANI. If there are articles whose notability is in doubt, a PROD or AfD is the most effective way to determine if there is a valid concern or not.—Bagumba (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Bagumba, regarding diffs – if you look at the user's talk page, the only interaction by the user has had is blanking the page [7] [8]. They have never once responded to anything. "diffs to discussions showing multiple requests with no good faith responses": a diff for this would be their entire talk page history. Regarding prods, the user usually just removes the prod notice, and even removes AfD notices despite those notices saying "do not remove". I went to User:Gilliam last week regarding this user, but he was unwilling to get involved. The user is very disruptive and has been for some time now. I suggested to Gilliam a short time out. I'd never advocate a straight up block to stop someone who I may not "like" or "disagree with", but straight up disruption and an inability to adapt and listen really bothers me. They have had ample warning over the past year or so, and overall, their articles are sub-par to say the least. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
There's no requirement that anyone directly responds. What would need to be shown is that repeated requests have been made on specific behavior, and that behavior has continued without any noticeable improvement. Blanking shows they are not directly responding, but I or another admin would need to be shown that the blanked talk pages are for the same specific problem. One example would be using escalated warnings that Rikster2 mentioned. Showing a string of deleted articles would be another way. AFAICS, AfDs have only be opened recently. A pattern of "sub-par" editing is harder to prove, as it's more subjective. A string of deleted articles would be more obvious. Unless there is more evidence, let's see how the AfDs play out.—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yup, blanking is just taken to mean "I read it.". You are not required to respond to anyone. However, if you continue to make problem edits after being told about them a few times then that can be acted upon. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record, outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Wilson (basketball), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxie Esho, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Capers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Murphy (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Daigneault, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Walsh (basketball) were delete. Past speedy deletions are Jarrell Christian, Matt Woodley. There are also baseball AfDs that ended with delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Marder, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Perlman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oren Gal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orr Gottleib, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Gould. Richard Bleier was a PROD that was deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

True, these articles weren't sent to AfD when they were deleted the first time. I've struck the part of my previous comment relating to AfD comments. Jack Marder was deleted twice in the log, but this appears to be the result of a clerical error, as both of the deletion logs refer to the same AfD.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a topic ban proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_for_User:Basketballfan12.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_30&oldid=1137372071"