Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

File rationale

Can anyone out there please tell me how File:NBA Development League Expansion Draft 2008.jpg does not satisfy the criteria for non-free use rationale? I literally copied the exact wording of every single NBA Draft logo's copyright/rationale information, yet as shown by the article's edit history, the users who keep removing it don't bother explaining anything regarding their unilateral decisions. Am I missing something? Jrcla2 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The original rationale is for 2008 NBA Development League Draft, not 2008 NBA Development League Expansion Draft. That is why the user removed it. I fixed it.—Chris!_c/t 18:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh jeez, that was literally all that was wrong with the rationale? Those two users waste more editors' time by not providing an explanation when requested than by simply removing images over and over again. Thanks CHT. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. They could have pointed out the error or fixed it themselves. Initiate an edit war is stupid imo.—Chris!_c/t 21:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Positions (PG/SG/SF/PF/C) of 2011 NBA Draftees

I feel that the positions of some of the players in the 2011 NBA draft have been listed inaccurately.

- For example, Derrick Williams is listed in the 2011 Draft article as a SF, when he is in fact more of a PF, or PF/SF at best. He actually filled the Center position at Arizona, and should be considered a combo forward coming into the NBA.

- Tristan Thompson is listed as a SF/PF, when in fact his skillset and style of play is currently almost purely a PF, and in fact he was considered to be the Center on Texas this year.

- Chris Singleton is listed as a PF, when his NBA position is clearly SF, although he did serve as a PF at the college level. Also he will be able to guard some PFs, not to mention SGs, in the NBA, but he figures to be slotted in as a SF, or at least a combo forward.

- Jimmer Fredette is listed as a pure SG, when he has shown the ability to be a PG on BYU, and will obviously be required to be a PG much of the time in the NBA.

- Josh Selby is listed as a pure PG, when he has demonstrated himself to be more or less a pure SG despite his size.

- Kemba Walker in my opinion should be considered a PG or nothing at the NBA level, due to his small size and the probability that he will therefore not be used as a SG often if at all.

- If those in charge of the article insist on listing Kemba as a combo guard, then it is curious that Brandon Knight, a player with similar questions regarding his ability to be a PG, is listed as exactly that in the article. If only one of the two is to be considered a combo guard, it should actually be Knight. I believe both should be considered PGs at the NBA level.

- To continue on the subject of Knight, Kemba, and Jimmer, I think it is a mistake to consider scoring PGs to not be PGs at all. The NBA has relatively few star players at the "PG" position who could be considered pure playmakers. Is Baron Davis not a PG? How about Derrick Rose? Deron Williams? That is not to suggest that there aren't also PG-sized players who are much more SG oriented in playing-style (Jason Terry, Eddie House, Gilbert Arenas, etc.). I'm just saying, I think Knight, Kemba, and to a lesser extent Jimmer were all drafted in the top ten with the strong expectation that they will make every effort to be facilitators as well as scorers, and to eventually play the 1 spot pretty much full-time. I'm not saying you should list players based on the position they are being drafted to play (ie. Derrick Williams being listed as a SF simply because Minny has too many PFs), but I think all three of the guards I'm talking about have the ability to be full-time PGs, and clearly lack the size to start as SGs on any normal team.

- Jan Vesely being listed as a pure SF is problematic, considering he is 6'11 and lacks the lateral quickness to guard NBA SFs. He appears to be a combo forward who will probably become a pure PF as he matures and bulks up.

- Nikola Vucevic is 7'0, 260 with a 7'5 wingspan, projecting as a Center or at least a PF/C, yet is listed as a pure PF in the article. Just because he can shoot the ball doesn't mean he's a power forward, come on now. His size and lack of elite athleticism makes him more likely to be a full-time center in the mold of Rasho Nesterovic.

- Bismack Biyombo is also listed as a pure PF, despite having no offensive game, which makes him seem like less of a true PF, and having a 7'7 wingspan, which makes him seem like at least a PF/C. I mean the comparison we constantly hear is Ben Wallace, well Big Ben played Center most of his career despite being relatively short. I'm not saying Biyombo is the same player as Wallace, but he figure to be used as an under-sized center alot if his career pans out.

- Klay Thompson is listed as a SG/SF, when he is far too slender and unathletic to be considered a proper swingman at the NBA level. He projects as more or less a pure SG at the NBA level. He was a 3 in college, like many NBA SGs, and maybe he gets used as a 3-man occasionally on a weirdly built team like GSW, but he is a 2.

- Jordan Hamilton is listed as a SF/SG, when he is 6'8, 228, making him very large for a SG to say the least, and lacking in the necessary lateral quickness and outside shooting to be considered a SG. He is a SF in the NBA, in the mold of Josh Howard.

- Tobias Harris has demonstrated strong potential to play SF, showing both athleticism and coordination that suggests he has the ability to greatly improve his offensive skills. Not to mention he clearly lacks the size and strength to be a full-time PF as he is listed in the article. Really he is something of a combo forward at this point, but definitely not a full-time PF in the NBA.

- Iman Shumpert being listed as a pure PG is ridiculous. Which is actually kind of appropriate since it was a ridiculously bad draft choice by the Knicks.

There are quite a few other inaccuracies that aren't as glaring and aren't applied to such high profile draftees.

I seem to notice these kind of inaccuracies every year right after the draft, when I come on wikipedia to review who was drafted where. I understand that people disagree on the true positions of some of these players, especially in a weak draft with many tweeners, but some of these listings seem to ignore the physical characteristics and/or playing styles of many of the players who were drafted in 2011. In some cases the positions applied to players seem to be based on what the player has been "selling" themselves as leading up to draft (ie. Derrick WIlliams as a SF), rather than the position they are actually suited for in the NBA based on their physicals and how they played in college or in foreign leagues.

Consider reconsidering some of these positional listings, especially the ones I've discussed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.136.65 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of this in much detail, but all I can say is that we have to reflect what the sources say. A lot of what you wrote above might be considered original research. Zagalejo^^^ 03:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Per what Zagalejo said.—Chris!_c/t 04:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, previously the positions weren't sourced at all. I've added general references from ESPN, Sports Illustrated and Yahoo! Sports and combined the draftees' positions from these three sources. If anyone has more sources for players position, I'll be happy to add them to the article. — MT (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

SB Nation

Are the articles from SB Nation qualify as reliable source? It's a blog, but according to its wikipedia article, it is maintained by part-time contract writers. — MT (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I want to use this article written by Scott Schroeder in Tanguy Ngombo article. Schroeder himself is a regular writer in AOL News website which is not a blog. So I guess it's okay to use that SB Nation article as a reference because it is written by an established and published writer. Any thoughts? — MT (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, depending on who is the writer.—Chris!_c/t 18:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Coaching data in infobox

Is there any consensus as to which teams should be included in the "teams coached" section? For example, Mike D'Antoni and George Karl had coached overseas (or in the CBA in Karl's case) before going to the NBA, Phil Jackson also coached in the CBA and in Puerto Rico I think. So, should these teams be included as well? Or just the NBA teams? The same question goes for NBA players with college coaching experience. And about the highlights section, a little consensus would help particularly to decide if Conference Championships, All-Star Game appearances and college/other leagues honors should be included. Xaviersc (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe coaching in college, national teams and non-NBA teams are as notable as coaching in the NBA and they should be included. Some coaches also have their assistant coaching tenure listed on their infobox. About the highlights, if the coaching stints outside NBA is listed, then the honors and awards they received during those stints should be listed as well. I also think that coaching in the All-Star Game is considered an honor and should be included, and I have them listed on my User:Martin tamb/Sandbox2. — MT (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion on college highlights (for players) to include at Template_talk:Infobox_NBA_biography#College.2FHS_awards —Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Karl Malone to GA status

Hello everyone, I'd like some help getting the Karl Malone article to good article status and have been expanding and fact-checking it. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Lockout means licensing rights lapsed, NBA.com scrubbed

According to the LA Times article "NBA lockout strips team websites of player images"

So this may be indefinite as long as the lockout takes place, so please retrieve the NBA.com pages from the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I thought they were just removing images, but a lot of other content simply isn't available anymore, like old draft boards and such. The historical playerfiles no longer work, either. (Not even for guys like Joe Fulks, which makes no sense. He died before the ABA-NBA merger!)

It seems like Hoopedia got completely wiped out, too. That sucks for anyone who ever contributed there. Zagalejo^^^ 01:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That is crazy. The NBA are "locking out" content on NBA.com as well.—Chris!_c/t 02:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This sucks, any player-related news (trades, free agents, extensions, etc) are not available as well. I'm glad that I already finished the trades section on 2011 NBA Draft before the lockout. I guess the lockout would halt the progress in this Wikiproject as well. — MT (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Some archived version of the historical player files: http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.nba.com/historical/playerfile/index.html?player=* Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Donta Smith

Just checking, does anyone know much about Donta Smith? I was trying to clean up the article a little bit, but it's pretty difficult for me to piece together the details of his overseas career. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 03:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help settling a NBA Championship template issue

All- I created an article for Fred Sheffield and in my research found that he was listed on the roster of the 1947 Philadelphia Warriors (Template:Philadelphia Warriors 1946–47 BAA champions). I added him to the template and it's been removed twice by User:Lnhbm without a ref or an edit summary. I wasn't able to find conclusive evidence he was on the team during the playoffs, but he's listed on basketball-reference.com as a member of the team and I couldn't find a Goolge News Archives source that indicated he'd been waived (actually, I did find one saying he'd been waived the following preseason). I have asked for a source, but the user isn't providing one. Anyone have a source that proves this conclusively so we can get the template right? I am open to either outcome. Thanks. (btw - the same user has changed the format on all NBA Champion templates to include first names. I don't mind the change, but I know it didn't go through the consensus process). Rikster2 (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't use basketball-reference.com as a source for championship roster. They always listed every player who played at least a minute in the season, even though they were waived/trade/retired before the playoffs. As for Sheffield, I found a google news article that mentions he was signed in September with the Warriors. There is no news when and why he left the team, but I found two news articles that mentions Sheffield playing for the Reading Keys of EPBL on January and on March 1947, a month before the playoffs. There is no mention whether he returned to the Warriors for the playoffs or not, but I think it's safe to say that he wasn't on the championship roster.

To clarify on the strikethrough sentence above. I just remembered that basketball-reference can still be used for the playoff roster. Basically everyone who plays in the playoffs (playoffs statistics can be found in the bottom of the Roster and Statistics page) and then do some research on those who did not play, whether they have left or were only inactive during the playoffs. In that Warriors' 1947 page, it's clear that Sheffield did not play at all in the playoffs. Combined with a little more research, then we could safely exclude him from the template. — MT (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the change that includes the full names, but I have a little problem with another recent format change. User:Ralphierce added a section below the roster for the link to the team's season articles and that year's playoff articles. I think this is a brilliant idea, but I think some of the colors used does not look good (e.g. Template:Philadelphia 76ers 1982–83 NBA champions). Any thoughts about the colors? — MT (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'll remove Sheffield from the template and the template from his article. A solid reference was all I was looking for. I am curious what happens if someone is on a playoff roster but never plays in the playoffs or cases where a key player is injured shortly before the playoffs begin. In both cases, the franchise would give them rings but how should they be treated on these templates? I need to take a closer look at the colors. With all this stuff, I don't necessarily dislike the outcomes - it's the process (or lack thereof). Lots of people have good ideas when considered on their own, but aren't always looking at the bigger picture. Rikster2 (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

GAAA! That Sixers template would scare children! The color scheme doesn't work across the bottom. Somebody should go through and quality check the lot of them. Rikster2 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of verifying the players that should or shouldn't be listed on the templates around a month ago while also standardizing the colors and the format. I worked from the 2011 until the 1970 champion but I haven't finished the rest of them because I was busy with other stuffs. That's why I haven't had the chance to do the research on the 1947 champion and Fred Sheffield. Anyway, I still hope to continue working on this in the future if time allowed me to. In my opinion, if a player played on the regular season but left the team (in any condition) before the playoffs, he should not be listed. But, if a player is on the roster during the playoffs, but did not play any game in the playoffs or finals, he should be listed (e.g. Phil Jackson was injured in 1970, but he is still listed as the winner of two championships as a player[1]). I'm open to the idea of adding a note that mentions about these players did not play in the playoffs. Anyway, this has been discussed a few months ago in here.

Also, I just thought about a further change to the templates regarding the links. The example is on my sandbox. In that example, the template title is linked to the team's article and the team's season article. While the bottom section has the links to that season's article, playoff article, and finals article. Compare it to the current format which has the link to that season's finals article hidden in the title. Also in that example, I tried to use the navbox default color scheme for the bottom section. It looks plain, but readable. I think it's better not to use the colors aside from the title, because the colors would emphasize the bottom section. Thoughts? — MT (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My preference is to avoid links next to each other and have the template title link only to the team's season article. The team's season article ideally should have links to the general team article and the general NBA season article in its lead. —Bagumba (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What about this, following the idea from association football templates, a dash to separate both links, so that the templates will still have all the relevant links in the navbox: the team, team's season, regular season, playoffs, finals.

Please also comment on the use of default color scheme on the bottom section. — MT (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My preference would be to reduce clutter and for the title to only link to the season article. I'm thinking that a reader would have already clicked on Philadelphia 76ers in the lead or from the infobox before getting to the navbox. In the worst case 1982–83 Philadelphia 76ers season, and all team season articles in general, should be made to have a link to the general team article in its lead. I'm also not a big fan of cluttering the navbox with links to the NBA articles for the season, playoffs and finals. I would think a reader of a player article would be interested in the team season article first. From the team season article, its lead should have a link to the general NBA season article. It would be a better practice to make articles navigable as they are clicked, instead of having the user press "back" on their browser to get to related subjects. General NBA season articles seem more relevant to the team season articles than the player articles. If the consensus is still to keep these, then I prefer a non-default color so as not to confuse it looking like the start of a new navbox. —Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and remove the colors for now. I'll leave the other links as they are right now, waiting for other inputs from more editor. — MT (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

When you're talking about using the "non-default color", do you mean the default navbox color or the team colors? At first glance, I thought you prefer the default color because in my opinion, default light blue navbox color combined with non-bold font should not look like a start of a new navbox. On the other hand, using background color and colored font seems to emphasize the contents, which might look like a start of another navbox. After a second look at your post, I just realized that you might prefer using the team colors. Anyway the default color is used on the bottom section on several other navbox such as Template:Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. — MT (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to use the other team color (blue in the case of the 76ers), but my primary preference is still to remove these bottom set of links altogether unless a strong argument convinces me otherwise.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I misread and thought you agree with me on the default color. Anyway, I've reverted my edits back until consensus has been formed. My only argument about the bottom links is: The current state of team season article does not provide easy navigation to the regular season/playoffs/finals articles. Even in the better team season article such as 2007–08 Boston Celtics season and 2009–10 Los Angeles Lakers season, those links are way down in the article. And for the older articles such as 1982–83 Philadelphia 76ers season, those links can only be found in the season navbox at the bottom. — MT (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We could start a manual of style in this project for team season articles, pehaps they all start with soemthing like "The 1982–83 NBA season for the the Philadelphia 76ers ..." WP:BOLDTITLE seems to indicate that bold text is not always necessary if the title is descriptive. —Bagumba (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

NBA historical playerfile links work again

So let's restore them in pages about retired/inactive players. Initially the "www.nba.com/historical/playerfile/index.html?player=first_last" links stopped working after the lockout but now they've been restored. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Draft templates

Was there some sort of consensus for this edit?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the consensus, but I agree with that edit. It's not a good idea to use that footer in the article space, since those draft templates only exists in player articles. There is no need to link a player to other years' draft articles. — MT (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. For the NFL, it has become accepted enough in templates like Template:1985 NFL Draft that some teams have adopted the format in templates such as Template:Panthers2011DraftPicks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the edit too. It's probably useful to see the links to other templates when viewing that template directly, but it's annoying when it's transcluded in articles. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't think of any case when I look into a player's article and then suddenly I want to look to other years draft templates. IMO, a link to the draft articles would be better, but they are still excessive. Kobe Bryant, the 13th pick in 1996, doesn't really need a direct link to Template:1977 NBA Draft or even the 1977 NBA Draft. There is no connection there. — MT (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ron Artest

So, Ron Artest is officially Metta World Peace. How should we handle this? I bet we'll have lots of fun at Talk:Ron Artest. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I say change it to Metta World Peace. It's his legal name, and since he doesn't have a stage name like Lady Gaga that would truly identify him per WP:COMMONNAME, it'd be a lot more hassle to explain to the myriad general public readers why it wasn't converted to Metta World Peace.

However, every single awards template that he is currently on should not be changed because he won those awards as Ron Artest. Any awards starting in 2011–12 will be have to be Metta World Peace, but anything prior stays as Ron Artest. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For sorting purposes on stats pages and the like, is his last name "Peace" or "World Peace"? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess "World Peace" will be his last name. I also invite those who interested in expressing an opinion to join the requested move discussion.—Chris!_c/t 01:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he says here that World Peace is his last name. Zagalejo^^^ 02:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I second Jrcla2 comment, Artest's name in historical articles should not be blindly changed into World Peace. We should carefully explain that the name change occurred in later date and that he is still called Artest at that time. Similar case with several players such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, World B. Free, Amar'e Stoudemire, etc. I predict that there will be plenty of edits, reverts, and possibly edit wars about Artest-World Peace name in other articles. The first already started here in Pacers–Pistons brawl. — MT (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

On the List of National Basketball Association career steals leaders page, I changed it to his new name, but added a footnote mentioning his name change. Take a look to see if this is how we should go about doing this with other players...if you're all in agreement, then I'll go through the other stats lists and make a footnote for Kareem and others that may need it. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. In those career stats lists, new/latest names should be used, i.e. World Peace, Abdul-Jabbar, etc. Anyway, I've added a note explaining the name change on NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award and several other awards that Artest has won (similar format to Abdul-Jabbar/Alcindor's note on NBA Most Valuable Player Award). I hope this is okay with everyone. — MT (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through each of the stats pages I typically maintain and make a Lew Alcindor note for Kareem and similar notes for any other players that may be on those lists. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it...what about Hakeem Olajuwon? Early in his career he was "Akeem" and then in his article on Wikipedia it said he legally changed his name to "Hakeem" some time in the early 90s (no specific date given). And maybe we should make a list of players who we know have changed their names legally over the course of their careers. We already mentions Kareem, Abdul-Rauf, and Free. Then there was also Bison Dele...any others? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hakeem Olajuwon and Amar'e Stoudemire both have their name misspelled during their early years. Olajuwon declared that he will use Hakeem instead of Akeem in 1991. Stoudemire declared that he will use Amar'e instead of Amare or Amaré in 2008. Walt Hazzard changed his name but he opted to use his old name throughout his career. Jamaal Wilkes (born Keith Wilkes) changed his name into Jamaal Abdul-Lateef, but he opted to use Jamaal Wilkes instead. — MT (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To add to the list: Zaid Abdul-Aziz originally went by the name Don Smith. Nenê only goes by his nickname now, but used to be listed as Nenê Hilario. Tariq Abdul-Wahad was Olivier St. Jean, but I think he changed his name before his rookie season. There's also Armen Gilliam, who changed one letter in his name so that people wouldn't mispronounce it. Zagalejo^^^ 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember in his rookie season, Nenê's birth name was used...Maybyner Hilario. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Byron Mullens was drafted as B. J. Mullens, the name he used in college, but before the season began he chose to use Byron. J. R. Henderson became a naturalized Japanese citizen in 2007 and became J. R. Sakuragi. Hiram Fuller and Randy Holcomb became Hesham Salem and Raed Elhamali respectively when they were naturalized in Libya. — MT (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Stanley Stutz (formerly Stanley Modzelewski)? Jrcla2 (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten NBA Rookies of the Year?

FYI

 – Discussion for unofficial ROY—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article here (from 1994). Anyone know more to this story? NBA.com still listed Meineke as the first winner as of 2010 (see here). Zagalejo^^^ 00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I found some more info here. It's kind of weird. Zagalejo^^^ 01:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly worthy of discussion. Please join the discussion started at Talk:NBA Rookie of the Year Award. — Myasuda (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:National Basketball Association postseason by team?

Resolved

 – TfD was opened.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are on Category:National Basketball Association postseason by team and its subcats? IMO these are all overcategorization, and the likelihood of there being enough articles to populate them is slim to none. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, those probably aren't necessary. Zagalejo^^^ 02:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and TFD it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Here it is: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 7#NBA postseasons by team. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Template for Deletion discussion

FYI

 – Deletion discussion—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Big_Ten_Conference_Men.27s_Basketball_Player_of_the_Year_navbox is a discussion that may be of interest to WP:NBA. This WikiProject and WikiProject College Basketball work closely together and get input on one another's standard operating procedures, so to speak, and this navbox TfD could use some NBA voices. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Symbols on lists

Resolved

 – Symbol kept per MOS:ACCESS.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

On any list of NBA players...stats, awards, or otherwise, those players that are in the Naismith HOF are highlighted yellow and marked with an asterisk (*), ones that are active are blue (and sometimes bolded) and marked with a caret (^), and the ones that are not yet eligible for HOF consideration are highlighted green with an anoctothorpe (#). On the career and playoff stats pages that I routinely maintain, I've decided to take off the symbols (*,^,#) because I don't see why they're necessary...the highlight should be enough for the key...the symbols keep things cluttered. Should we go through all other lists and remove the symbols too? Also...as mentioned earlier, the active players sometimes have their names bolded and sometimes don't. To bold, or not to bold?...that is the question. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

How are users on a text-based browser, screen reader, or the like able to tell which items are highlighted? It's a violation of MOS:ACCESS to have important information conveyed only via color. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:COLOR says that: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." Please read MOS:ACCESS for further information on how to make the articles easier to navigate and read, for both regular readers and those who have disabilities. Bold text also discouraged on MOS:BOLD. On the list that have been promoted to Featured List status, those symbols are needed and often bold text are discouraged by the reviewers. — MT (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC

All right...thanks for the info all...and thanks to Oknavezad for reverting the changes I made! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I believe a lot of editor have been there as well, including me. Around 2 years ago, I questioned the need of these symbols during a Featured List review which makes me looks like an idiot, trying to be a reviewer but doesn't understand the MOS. — MT (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Been there, too. Part of the reason I started watching various MOS pages was to keep track of these things. It was an easy mistake to make, and not a problem to fix. Glad to be able to help. oknazevad (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Template problem

Resolved

 – template renamed from "playoff" to playoff".—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

While working on an unrelated problem, I've stumbled upon a small problem with a template belonging to (I assume) this project. The 'view', 'edit' and 'discuss' link on templates of the form year-year team playoffs game log do not work as they expect the template to be named year-year team playoff game log (no 's' on playoffs). I'll be happy to fix this if anyone can tell me which is correct - the singular or plural of the word 'playoff'. The O.E.D suggests the singular can refer to a series of games ([2]), but being U.S articles I thought it best to check. - TB (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Some examples are;

• Template:2010–11 Portland Trail Blazers playoff game log
• Template:1990–91 Boston Celtics playoff game log
• Template:2000–01 Toronto Raptors playoff game log
• Template:2009–10 Chicago Bulls playoff game log

Answering my own question .. 'playoffs' is the more correct term, I'll rename the offending templates. - TB (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

New discussion of navboxes and succession boxes at the Village pump

FYI

 – Navbox usage discussion—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using navboxes where succession boxes would suffice. — MT (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Undrafted National Basketball Association players category

Resolved

 – Categorize undrafted BAA players as undrafted NBA players.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a question about the use of Category:Undrafted National Basketball Association players. I created Mickey Rottner yesterday and did not include the category. My thought process was two-fold: 1) he came out of college prior to the existence of any Draft (NBA or BAA), and 2) he never played in the NBA, he played in the BAA pre-merger. The category has since been added. I don't care either way, I just want to make sure that I am applying the proper categories at the time that I create a player's article and save other editors' time. If there is any additional clarity on this, it might be a good idea to include it in the verbiage at the top of the category entry itself. Thanks for the direction on this. Rikster2 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The NBA seems to consider the BAA to be its direct ancestor, so I think it's OK to lump BAA players in with that category. I do think it's a bit weird to apply the category to players who came out of college before a draft existed, but since it's still technically true to describe them as undrafted, it's not something I'd worry too much about. Zagalejo^^^ 18:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

JR Smith

Resolved

 – Current team identified.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone follow the Chinese Basketball Association? I can't figure out which team J. R. Smith plays for. Depending on the source, he either plays for the Zhejiang Golden Bulls or the Zhejiang Lions. (For some context, see User_talk:Chrishmt0423#Help_with_Chinese.3F.) Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 06:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow CBA, but I believe Smith plays for the Golden Bulls. ESPN says that he signed with Zhejiang, but the different Zhejiang team from his former teammate Wilson Chandler, who signed for the Lions/Guangsha. In the Golden Bulls' team page on Sina.com, you can see Smith's photo and name (JR史密斯) on the roster, along with Josh Boone. Compare it with the Lions' team page. — MT (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's one news source from China that mentions Smith signed with the Golden Bulls while Chandler signed with the Lions. — MT (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for finding those sources. I'm guessing Asia-Basket is wrong. 16:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

retired numbers in navboxes

Is it just me, or would it be better to include the players names with the number. I think this applies to all team boxes.—Bagumba (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it would make it kind of cumbersome. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Most teams dont have as many as the Celtics. If you look at the Lakers, all the names are practically repeated under "Culture and Lore", albeit some of them are nickname like "The Captain". Unless you're a fan of the team, you wouldnt recognize either the number of the nickname. Very fansite-ish IMO.—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Those "Culture and Lore" sections have always bugged me. They're a bloated mess of redundant links, as well as some links to articles that barely even mention the teams in question. People have been treating the navboxes more like "scrapbooks" of their various memories of the teams, rather than navigational aids.

We really need to rethink these templates from the ground up. I probably wouldn't list any retired numbers; I'd just link to each team's all-time roster article, which would include all of the great players, and more. Zagalejo^^^ 06:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Culture and Lore" section should be removed.—Chris!_c/t 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of these mega-navbox, these navboxes need to be trimmed significantly. I also agree that head coaches need a separate navbox, just like Template:Los Angeles Lakers head coaches. Also, a separate head coaches navbox could open some room for improvement, such as the coaches' tenures with the franchise, or notes whether the coaches coached the previous incarnation of the franchise with a different name. Cultures and lore sometimes are ridiculous without clear inclusion criteria, entries such as "PierceAllenGarnett" and "BirdParishMcHale" are weird. In Lakers' template there is a culture titled "81" which links to Kobe Bryant, this is just ridiculous. Most of the rest of them are players' nickname which should not even be in the templates. Rivalries also often redundant, for example, in Lakers' template the 76ers are one of Lakers rivals, but there are no article called Lakers–76ers rivalry and not even a mention of their rivalries in National Basketball Association rivalries.

About the retired numbers, I have no strong opinion about whether they should or should not be included here. But if they are included, perhaps the players names should be listed along with the number, it's much clearer for the readers. — MT (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Coaches navbox discussion

I don't think head coaches should have a separate navbox. It is unnecessary imo. And navbox is for navigation purpose, therefore it is inappropriate to include too much info. I prefer to keep retired numbers since they are relevant. But if consensus prefers removal, it is fine with me also.—Chris!c/t 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC) There's been a growing movement to use navboxes over succession boxes. Should we have an NBA project specific discussion?—Bagumba (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC) The NBA project has decided to get rid of nearly all succession boxes before that discussion even started. So unless there is anything new that anyone want to discuss specifically, I don't see the need to have a discussion.—Chris!c/t 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC) The previous discussion was to get rid of redundant succession boxes, but didnt say not to not have navboxes to replace them. Del Harris has succession box for LAL. I know I saw a lot of others when I added the LAL coaches navbox. I'll wait for consensus to 1) add years to navbox or 2) not even have coaches navbox before proceeding further.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC) If we have coaches navboxes (or have team navbox instead whatever we decided), then succession boxes become redundant and should be removed. I wasn't aware of situations where succession boxes are used but not navboxes before. Do you have an opinion on the navbox vs. succession box debate?—Chris!c/t 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Indiv coaches were in the LAL team box, I removed it because it seemed clutter for that box, and created the LAL coaches box. I would think to keep the navbox because readers might be interested in other coaches for that team, and navboxes are easier to maintain than succ boxes.—Bagumba (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC) That is what I think too, navbox is better. Succession boxes should be used when navboxes can't be used.—Chris!c/t 21:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I support "Culture and Lore" but only if an article or section in an article discusses the item. Otherwise, its trivia.—Bagumba (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Head coach-specific navboxes

It was on my agenda to eventually introduce this to WP:NBA (I've got an assortment of other things taking priority at the moment), but since it's been brought up I see the time is now. When it comes to NBA head coaches, I think there ought to be navboxes specifically for them, apart from the team templates. For one, it's much less confusing because you'll know immediately who coached before and after Coach X, whereas with the team template it's kind of jumbled in the mass of articles. Also, there has been a uniformity created through consensus among WP:College football, WP:College basketball, WP:College baseball, WP:Lacrosse and even WP:National Football League regarding how head coach-specific navboxes should look. The most relevant batch to this WikiProject is college basketball's, naturally. For pertinent examples of what I'm talking about, see Template:Florida Gators basketball coach navbox and Template:Northern Colorado Bears basketball coach navbox. The UF navbox contains the demarcation in the event of an interim head coach, while the Northern Colorado one shows one without any interim coaches.
By incorporating coaches' full names and tenures there is a much more comprehensive overview of the coaching history of the organization. And since these navboxes are dynamic and not static, any updates will take effect on all of the coaches' articles, ensuring they're most up-to-date (on a related aside: all NBA succession boxes need to go away). When it comes to coaches' tenures, WP College Basketball uses the calendar years of when they first coached and last coached a team. Example: John Doe, in his first season with Team ABC, coaches them for the first five games of the regular season in 1998 but then has to leave the team for good for personal reasons. Since not a single game was coached in 1999 during the 1998–99 season, his tenure on the navbox would read "(1998)". On the flipside, he goes on to coach Team XYZ for three years later on. His tenure would then read "(2003–2006)" because he coached the 2003–04 through 2005–06 seasons. I am wholly in favor of creating, and standardizing, NBA head coaching navboxes. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also – I meant to add that the head coaching navboxes would replace the team navboxes. It will render them unnecessary since a more comprehensive overview of the coaches will then exist. It will also help organize coaches who coached at both the college and NBA levels, because the coaching navboxes descend from earliest to most recent, thus making their succession between college and NBA programs more easily identifiable. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If consensus is to have head-coach specific navboxes, it is fine with me. I just want to note that head-coach specific navbox isn't a new idea. I remember they exist once upon a time but somehow they were incorporated to the team navboxes.—Chris!_c/t 01:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Jrcla2, yes, I'm all in favor of this. Thanks for bringing this up here. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If WP:NBA adopts the standardized coaching succession navbox format, it will be one more step on the road to cleaning up the proliferation of over-linking via navboxes, and will provide a clean, complete and quickly discernible coaching succession in lieu of succession boxes that take up more space and only provide links to the articles for the coaches who immediately precede and follow the subject coach. I endorse this whole-heartedly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

My reasons for supporting a separate navbox have been pointed out by Jrcla2 and Dirtlawyer1 above, tenures are good information that should be added to the navbox. While it would be a clutter if we include tenures when the head coaches are still in the team navbox, a separate head coaches navbox will do well. Other notes, such as interim head coach or notes that the coach coached the previous incarnation of the franchise before it was moved, could be useful and added to the head coaches navbox. Overlinking is a major problem when listing the head coaches in the team navbox, there is no need to have Minneapolis Auditorium and Phil Jackson on the same template, they are barely related to each other. The only minus side of having a separate head coaches navbox is there could be a clutter of navbox on several head coaches, such as Red Auerbach or Bill Russell, who will have the head coaches navbox and the team navbox (as retired numbers).

In conclusion, I'm in favour of creating a separate head coaches navbox, with tenures, and removing head coaches from team navbox. And also to remove head coaching succession boxes if there are already head coaches navboxes that provide the same information. — MT (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support navboxes as an enhancement over succession boxes for head coaches.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Jrcla2: When you wrote "I meant to add that the head coaching navboxes would replace the team navboxes", I think you intended to write "I meant to add that the head coaching navboxes would replace the listing of head coaches in the team navboxes", and not that all team navboxes would be removed.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Right – I meant that (a) head coaches should be removed from the team navboxes, and (b) the coach navboxes would replace the team navboxes on the coaches' articles. I am still in favor of keeping team navboxes, but more coach-specific one would better serve those types of articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone has added the coaches back to the Lakers team box. I've invited them to discuss here.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would propose to shorten to last name as opposed to full in the interest of space. What are the compelling reasons for full name?—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposal to use only last name, but I don't mind if the consensus already established on full name. — MT (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It goes back to consistency among many WikiProjects. Why limit ourselves to just the last name if we're already taking a great step in including tenures? Including full names provides a greater overview of who these people are without sacrificing quality. The remedy to this is to create the navboxes as a default "collapsed" state so that, in the rare event an NBA coach only has the coach navbox on his article, it will not be too large automatically. Also, for teams with multiple coaches who had the same last name, it bypasses the need to put the first initial followed by the last name. No NBA team that I'm aware of has ever had two head coaches who shared the same first and last name, and so including both solves the problem of disambiguation before it even needs to be addressed. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Years are to replace info that was in succession box. I know first names were in succ box before also, but I'm willing to sacrifice that for saving on the footprint, collapsible or not. Adding a first initial on the rare occasion duplicate last names happen is manageable, in the worst case the link will be correct even if display is ambiguous. Again, rare case.—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Format for interim coaches

Resolved

 – Superscripted # used denotes interim coaches in coach navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Some comments on the edit in Los Angeles Lakers coach navbox to conform with CBB. I think superscipting seem more suitable for a note: "Bill Bertka ^# (1994)" versus "Bill Bertka # (1994)." Also for the note " Pound sign (#) denotes interim head coach.", the term pound sign is only used in North America, which might be fine because NBA is based in US, but why not just have it as "(#) denotes interim head coach." or ^# denotes interim head coach depending on the superscript consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why pound sign? It looks ridiculous. Why not use an asterisk?—Chris!_c/t 05:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, would solve my wanting to superscript it too. Jrcla2 can comment on other projects use of #.—Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are legitimate concerns with using the pound sign (and it sounds like there are), there is no reason that college sports couldn't change the symbol used - it's really a small part of the navbox. The issue is the work required to correct every college football, basketball, baseball, etc. navbox with whatever the new system is. I also think it's OK to just make a conscious decision to use a different symbol in the NBA. The NBA may be based in North America, but unlike most other leagues there is worldwide viewership and interest. If a legitimate cultural reason exisits not to use the pound (or as they say in the UK "hash") symbol, then don't ues it. Rikster2 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A few comments here. 1) The asterisk is a little difficult to parse visually because it looks rather similar to all the bullet points that separate the elements in the navbox. Perhaps a dagger (†) is better than either an asterisk or the culturally ambiguous pound sign? 2) We really ought to have a template dedicated to coaching succession navboxes that encodes and standardizes this interim coach symbol and notation. 3) I'm trying to push though a similar effort to purge coaches from team navboxes in college football since we have dedicated navboxes there for the coaching succession. Can interested parties please weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#College football team navboxes. Thanks to all and thanks again to Jrcla2 for leading this charge. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I dont have a problem with #, I just thought it should be superscripted and we shouldnt call it "pound", we can just visually refer to it. If we used †, I also dont think we need to add the word "dagger" to the key. Asterisk is hard to see with the small font in the navbox.—Bagumba (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Using a different symbol or back to # is fine as long as it is kept relatively small. Using superscript is a good idea.—Chris!_c/t 20:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My problem with dagger † is that sometimes it misleads readers to think that the subject is deceased, see this example. — MT (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, but we would put it next to the name and not the year like (2000–†). I'm gonna go back to # but superscripted.—Bagumba (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Greek/Italian league records

Resolved

 – Sources for record identified.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any good, one-stop sources for individual player records in the Greek and Italian leagues? Thanks. I've asked the same question at the general basketball project, but I figured this project is more active, so I might have more luck here. (By records, I mean stuff like, "most points in a game", etc.) Zagalejo^^^ 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

For Italy, Lega A's official site has a comprehensive player database here. It is based on a season-to-season list of players in the league, so the default page lists only players active in the current season of Lega A. However, a pull-down menu lets you select any season from 1948–49 onward. Once you select a player, click on "Statistiche totali" ("total statistics") and it will pull up the player's entire stats for Lega A. Admittedly, it's a little awkward, and incomplete as only Lega A stats are included. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just found another source — if a player has ever been involved in the Euroleague (at least in its ULEB history from 2000–01), he will be in this database. Once you select a player (click on the first letter of his family name to bring up the list), it will include all of his career statistics. ULEB keeps a similar list for all Eurocup players here. This is even better than the Lega A list in that a typical entry includes all professional AND U.S. college stats (if applicable). For example, David Blu's Euroleague page includes his USC stats. (One exception to the stated scope is Manu Ginóbili, whose page includes only his Euroleague stats from his last two seasons in Europe.) — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I'll be sure to make use of those links in the future. Zagalejo^^^ 00:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Unification of basketball infoboxes

FYI

 – Discussion for common navbox for all pro basketball leagues.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion here on replacing the various basketball-related infoboxes into one infobox just like Template:Infobox football player. There's also discussion on including coaches' (see Gregg Popovich, for example) and executives' parameters there such as wins, losses, PCT, teams coached/managed, etc. Seeing that Template:Infobox NBA biography and Template:Infobox basketball player almost have identical parameters (I did not see anything that was different), a simple redirect would've been OK but if there's something wrong such as screwed up infoboxes, there's where the coordination will help.

Seeing that the NBA infobox is the most developed out of those that are existing, I reckoned that any universal infobox should start from there, then delete the Template:Infobox basketball player, and move Template:Infobox NBA biography there, with the new parameters for coaches and executives.

I suggested bringing in NCAA players but someone informed me that I should not screw those up, and I read somewhere that Template:Infobox NCAA Athlete was a product of a collaboration between WP:College basketball and WP:College football so I shouldn't screw those up. Still, it would've been nice to see the Bryce Drew article using a universal basketball player article instead of having a separate NBA infobox at the bottom.

P.S. Since there'll be at least some delay on the NBA season and some NBA players will play elsewhere it's good step to ensure that all articles about basketball players use the same infobox. –HTD 17:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully support this proposal. It is a mess to have redundant infobox. The new infobox should be called Template:Infobox basketball biography since I intend to have this works for coaches as well. I will ask User:LOL to comment since he is the one who build many of our templates.—Chris!_c/t 19:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I should add that Template:Infobox NBA biography should be used as a base for the new one. Other infoboxes should redirect to Infobox NBA biography, which would be renamed.—Chris!_c/t 19:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox on Oscar Robertson

Resolved

 – Display when no image in infobox fixed. May require page to be purged.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know why half of the parameters don't work? I try purge the page and clear my cache, but nothing works.—Chris!_c/t 02:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem when there is no image in the infobox. I changed Template:Infobox basketball biography and it seems to work now.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is fixed now, you may have to purge the page. Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Came here to ask what the problem was on the Craig Ehlo article. Purged the page and all the data re-appeared, so thanks for that tip. Perhaps someone will kindly run a bot to purge all pages using this infobox. ―cobaltcigs 13:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Career wins

Resolved

 – Page for List of winningest NBA coaches identified.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there list articles for career coaching wins (pro and college)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting cutoff criteria for this list, but I guess you can sort by wins at List of National Basketball Association head coaches with 400 games coached—Bagumba (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Or do you mean total career coaching wins (college+pro)? I don't think such a list exists on Wikipedia.—Chris!_c/t 22:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this list be in see also sections in articles like Phil Jackson?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there also a college coaches games coached or won list (if so, it should probably be in the see also section on this page)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Added List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins—Bagumba (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical playerfiles in infobox

Resolved

 – "historical_profile" param added to infobox to force non-retired player to show historical NBA profile.

I may have asked this very same question before, but I forget: how do you force an infobox to display a player's NBA.com historical playerfile? I want to add this to Eddy Curry's infobox (especially since Kelly Dwyer has commented about Curry's height in our article.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the code, it only looks like it will go to historical if you end his career by filling in "career_end"—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way that could be changed? It seems like Curry still hopes to come back.

This issue could be especially important if we want to merge all the infoboxes into one. For example, there are many players who go on to long overseas careers after their NBA careers end. It would be nice to include working NBA.com infobox links for those players. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I added historical_profile flag to bypass default logic. Couldnt figure out a more graceful way to infer which profile to use.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for doing that. Zagalejo^^^ 18:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this notable

Resolved

 – Consensus was that ESPN's NBA player ranking was not notable without outside coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Today, I saw on my watchlist this. (diff | hist) . . Kevin Garnett‎; 17:51 . . (-250) . . Mosmof (talk | contribs)‎ (Not a notable ranking, not widely recognized by reliable, 3rd party sources)

I honestly disagree with this person and revert his edit for a couple reason, including WP:BRD. What does 3rd party sources have to do with anything? ESPN is the world wide leader in sports. Normally, the discussion would go on the article's talk page, but since this effects multiple articles, I am bringing it on here.

Any thoughts are more than welcome?

YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Some rankings are widely recognized. The AP polls for college football and basketball are widely reported, not just by AP sources. Have ESPN's rankings of NBA players garnered similar wide-spread attention? If they haven't gotten attention outside of ESPN—i.e., no attention by third parties—they probably aren't notable rankings.

Personally, I think a top-five ranking might be worth mentioning, with the qualification that it's a ranking done by ESPN. However, 27th is low enough down the list that it's, well, trivial to mention. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Mosmof (talk · contribs) left a note on the talkpage of the adding editor, TheHappiestCritic (talk · contribs), inviting further discussion to take place here. I agree that I would like to see other sources mention this ranking so that we are not ESPN's marketing machine. Otherwise, it opens up floodgate on other polls to be mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The ranking is not notable. 3rd party sources have everything to do with this because they are used to gauge how notable this ranking is. Like Bagumba said, we are not ESPN's marketing machine. Mosmof did nothing wrong imo.—Chris!_c/t 02:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a distinction needs to be made between something an ESPN personality says and something ESPN does. As a conveyor of information and opinion, ESPN is a reliable source, so it's fine to paraphrase Henry Abbot or Marc Stein or whoever when they say "Amar'e Soudemire is awesome", because their analyses and opinions have been vetted through an editorial process. But the ranking system is an ESPN creation that hasn't received the same level of critical eye that the AP ranking or even John Hollinger's PER receive. --Mosmof (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think it's that notable. ESPN has to ceate content for close to a dozen different multimedia channels and they do this stuff to generate buzz and interest for their programming - especially in today's lockout environment where they are trying to keep the NBA front of mind for fans. That said, I don't see harm in including it somewhere in the article, just not in an overly prominant place. I don't see it as any less credible as the SLAM magazine ranking, frankly. Rikster2 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

NBA.com profile for players in old ABA and NBA

Resolved

 – OK to have both NBA and bbr stat link for players who played in ABA and NBA, even though NBA link does not have ABA stats.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

While fixing some problems with NBA profile not showing in infobox with some players, I also fixed players who played in both ABA and NBA not having NBA profile. However, I dont know if this might have been intentional, as I notice that the NBA profile does not list ABA stats. Some players like Bobby_Jones_(basketball,_born_1951) also have a link to basketball-reference.com, which has combined ABA and NBA stats. Should we leave NBA profile for ABA/NBA players, even though there are only NBA stats in it? It might be an improvement, as I dont know how many bios encoded the link to bbr.com like Jones did.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

An additional source for stats wouldn't hurt. I can't vouch for every article, but I edited most of the infoboxes for players with ABA and NBA experience and added the bbr.com link in each one. Xaviersc (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ideally, all retired players should have the bbr.com link.—Chris!_c/t 02:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox stat link format

Resolved

 – Standardized to format of Stats at NBA.com and Stats at Basketball-Reference.com—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The formatting of stat links in the infobox is inconsistent. Shaquille O'Neal currently shows as:

Shaquille O'Neal at NBA.com
Stats at Basketball-Reference.com

Should we standardize on the NBA.com entry with <playername> at <website>, and the link with an arrow:

Shaquille O'Neal at NBA.com
Shaquille O'Neal at Basketball-Reference.com —Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the need for standardization. Right now it looks quite weird. Anyway, I suggest we use Stats at NBA.com and Stats at Basketball-Reference.com, there is no need to repeat the player's name which already shown in the article title and also on the infobox header. — MT (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reason why this looks weird is that the b-ref link is used to source the stats. The NBA link is there so that people can look at the profile. It wasn't meant to be used as a source for stats originally. Anyway, standardize this is a good idea.—Chris!_c/t 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)