Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Contract buyouts

Resolved

 – Players bought out still go though waivers.

Rashard Lewis was bought out by the Hornets. Is that considered a waiver, or is he an immediate FA. I assume the latter. It's currently listed as a waiver at List_of_2012–13_NBA_season_transactions#Released.—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a waiver, with a negotiated reduction of salary if the player is not claimed by anyone.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Source for player's position

I thought it was obvious, but what do we use to verify a player's position? nba.com and basketball-reference.com only lists G/F/C and doesn't get to SG/PG and SF/PF level of detail.—Bagumba (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Example: Some editors are making changes like making Lamar Odom a center. Being a fan, I know he sometimes is the effective center on the floor, but I dont think he is ever listed as a center. We need to come up with a way to make this verifiable and avoid original research.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

At least some of ESPN's profiles do distinguish between point guards and shooting guards, and so on. That might not help in all cases, but it could be a useful guide. Zagalejo^^^ 02:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course all ESPN ELs were removed. Probably for the better, as I couldn't find Steve Nash's profile on ESPN. What would people think of just going with F/C/G for ease of verification?—Bagumba (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. I do think it's good to be less-specific, although it will be hard to prevent people from changing things. Zagalejo^^^ 23:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking to do mass changing of articles myself, but was surprised the info was not readily available. I would say if any position is challenged, lack of consensus should fall back to generic positions on nba.com and b-r.com. Be aware that the "other stuff" argument is a likely response.—Bagumba (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. First, one assumption I think is reasonable to make is that if a player is listed as a center and a forward, it is reasonable to assume that this means power forward. Ditto with guard-forward meaning SF-SG. Another wrinkle I'd throw in is that often players play a different position professionally than they do in college. An example is Tyler Hansbrough, who played an awful lot of center at UNC, but is clearly a forward in the NBA. How should this be handled? I would propose the infobox listing the professional position, but applying the college position category. I could see some people getting confused by this, though. Rikster2 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ben Gordon's jersey

I've seen several people update Ben Gordon's infobox to say that his number is 32, but I can't confirm that number anywhere. A lot of the time, people are getting these things off Twitter posts. Does anyone know the story here? Zagalejo^^^ 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate when people update and its not the info is not on the roster page, and there is no obvious source from edit summary. I'm probably the only one or in the minority on this, but I wouldn't mind seeing it removed outright from the infobox. A player's number does not change my understanding of the player one bit, unless he's got a retired number.—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I try to remove whenever I see unsourced addition of jersey number. There is not much we can do as this is a website where "anyone can edit".—Chris!_c/t 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We could remove it from the infobox template :-) —Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Team USA images

I don't know if this will be the best we get. For the record this photoset has a lot of decent images of Team USA in uniform. I don't know if Olympic Games shots will be available with better shots. So I am logging this here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Goran Dragic

Anyone know what's going on with Goran Dragic? The Sporting News' transactions list says that he signed a deal with Phoenix on the 17th [2], but I don't see that mentioned anywhere else. Zagalejo^^^ 06:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A related issue: the same site says that Raja Bell was waived, but Bell is still listed on Utah's official roster page, and is being mentioned in trade rumors. Anyone know anything about Bell's status? Zagalejo^^^ 00:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kirk Hinrich/1

Resolved

 – GA assessment was delisted on April 18, 2012

I have nomintated the Kirk Hinrich article for Good Article reassessment here. You are welcome to participate. Thanks Secret ^account 04:53, 2 March 2012‎

Single season minutes played

There are many statistical lists for the NBA. I am wondering if we should create a list for single-season minutes played. If so, should it be yearly leader in minutes, the top X single-season minute totals or the top X single-season minute averages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You could follow the format of some of the articles here. Zagalejo^^^ 04:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess the majority are annual per game leader lists although there are some All-time top 25 lists. I'll see what I can do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I think we should have more (assists, steals and blocks) All-time top x lists although I prefer top 50.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

NBA Summer League MVP

An editor began adding this to player's infobox. I don't think that is a good idea as it is too insignificant. But maybe for those whose only achievement is Summer League MVP, we should allow it. Thoughts?—Chris!_c/t 00:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a big enough deal to note whether it's the only achievement or not. There has to be a lower bar somewhere. Rikster2 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Same thing with NBA BBVA Rising Star.—Chris!_c/t 01:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Even for Jeremy Lin, Rising star is one of the biggest highlight he has to date. It is certainly more significant than being All-Ivy League. Not so sure it should be removed. Being a rising star means that you were one of the best young players in play against the best basketball players in the world. Summer League MVP is probably as important as D-League MVP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Summer League MVP is completely irrelevant. At least NBDL MVP is proper MVP of a professional league. Summer League games don't even count. People are WAY too quick to add any old "honor" to fill up infobox. This one is particularly egregious. Who was the 2007 Summer League MVP? Does anyone care? Rikster2 (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say the games don't count, do they count less than McDonalds AA Game and Jordan Brand Classic which are single-game events or FIBA U17 and FIBA U19 World Championship Touurnaments all of which have MVP templates on WP?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I never said the Jordan Brand MVP was significant - that's your deal. But yes, I absolutely think being the MVP of a FIBA-sponsored World Championship event is more significant than being named MVP of an 8-game series of exhibition games. (which, by the way, doesn't necessarily mean there should be templates for those). Rikster2 (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rising Star is just an All-Star event. Participating in it is not that big of a deal. Just like participating in Slam Dunk Contest is not that big of a deal.—Chris!_c/t 04:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Lin's infobox, it still has high school All-star and college All-Conference. Rising Star is certainly a more significant honor than any of those because it is like being an All-star among first and second year professional players. That is more significant than any California High School or Ivy League honors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with Rising Star, but high school all-star seems like a very trivial award to list in the infobox. I really think very few HS awards should make it after the person becomes a professional. And it seems like you'd want to draw the line at NPOY, recognized All-American lists and maybe Mr. Basketball for their state. Rikster2 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been raised above. What I think we need are a list of awards with the following structure: Tier 1 - Awards that will remain in the infobox for the most accomplished basketball players of All-Time, Tier 2 - Awards that will remain on NBA Athlete infobox highlight lists until they can be replaced by five Tier 1 Awards. These are generally awards that are relevant for top tier college players and non-NBA pros, Tier 3 - awards lesser college awards and high school awards that can be removed when five Tier 1 or Tier 2 awards are present. I would view NBA rising star as a Tier 2 award and many of the current things in Lin's list are Tier 3 awards. A Tier 3 award is something that is perfectly fine in an article like Jahlil Okafor (high school All-state by Class) and maybe John Shurna (high school state slam dunk champion by class) just because there are no Tier 1 or Tier 2 things to replace them with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think All-State, All-Conference or HS Slam Dunk (or 3-point) contest champ are EVER significant enough to be in the infobox - even for HS players. Most (should be all) HS players who have articles are AA level players. Those (as well as potentially NPOY or State POY) are the ONLY HS awards that should even be considered for infoboxes. HS achievements just really aren't that big a deal beneath state Mr. Basketball. At that point, you are just looking for crap to put in there and it makes the guy look pretty pathetic in my opinion - especially if those honors still sit in infoboxes after those guys have been pro a few years. Rikster2 (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some guys who don't get written about by ESPN and Sports Illustrated until they are high school AA, state Mr. BB or college all-stars. There are other high school players who are being written about in those publications years before they are any of these things (Okafor). The highlights of both types of players belong in the infobox, whatever they are. There are other players who are notable whose highlights are limited but should be presented.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Who says the infobox needs any honors? They will come for most players. I get the concept of tiers, but there needs to be a minimum standard too. Dunk Contests, all conference in HS, and Summer League honors should be below that bar IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO, an infobox is a McLEAD. Its highlights should summarize the article in a bulletpoint format. If the article has highlights they should be summarized in the infobox to give the reader the proper At-a-glance understanding of the subject. In the case of Lin his highest honor to date is the Rising Stars and it should be included in his infobox highlights summary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - I think there is certain stuff that should be in the infobox and certain stuff that shouldn't. It's not the article's Cliff's Notes. Plus, some of the honors we are talking about are so minor that it's not something you'd put in a summary - that is my point. Rikster2 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of the infobox if it is not to give an at-a-glance understanding of the subject?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of including things there that really aren't that important? The infobox gives vitals, club history, draft history, international medals, sometimes a picture - and NOTABLE achievements. I hardly think a HS dunk contest is a critical part of John Shurna's bio, nor is being named a Summer League MVP a big part of learning who Damian Lillard is. Rikster2 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Important is a relative term. Barack Obama doesn't include the {{USSenIL}}, whereas most people consider being a US senator one of the most important achievements of their life. I am going to revert the removal of Rising stars from Lin's article because it continues to be his most significant highlight and more notable than anything currently listed as a highlight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have also readded it to Norris Cole's article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

But those honors are both notable - you wouldn't put 2001 Moose Lodge 101 man of the year on Obama's infobox if that was the biggest award he'd won because it just isn't worthy of that recognition. As I said, I don't feel strongly about the Rising Star thing. I DO feel strongly about this Summer League thing. It simply is NOT significant enough to be an infobox item. Rikster2 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not so certain that the NBA Summer League MVP is any more notable that say the Rucker Summer League MVP, but since it is the only officially sanctioned NBA Summer League I view it as like comparing the D-League to other developmental league MVPs. I would like to see a table in the NBA Summer League article containing the MVPs. My opinion would depend a bit on whether players who win the award tend to go on to be All-Star players. If winning the award is indicative of potential excellence and it is officially sanctioned by the NBA, then it is important, IMO. Can we see a list of winners somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tony, In what other sports scenario do we call out honors earned in preseason play? Not in baseball, football or hockey - why would we do it for basketball? This would be like noting Spring Training MVP in the infobox if such a thing existed. Less than that, actually, since the Summer League rosters never come close to being the complete roster. I don't see where it matters at all who won it in the past, the thing just isn't a big enough deal to put in info boxes. Sure, mention it in the article, but why call it out like it was achieved in some context where it really mattered? Rikster2 (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the proper parallel would be Spring training. I think it would be more like some sort of Winter League. I don't know if there are any winter league honors in baseball infoboxes. I guess there should not be so I will surrender the Summer League point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox should include only the most notable info, and is not meant to include everything. In my opinion, both Rising Star and Summer League are not important. Seriously who cares about Summer League. It is nothing more than organized practices for rookies. Anyway, Rikster2 says it much better than me.—Chris!_c/t 01:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's focus on Rising Stars. It is the most notable thing in Jeremy Lin's highlight list. Anyone in favor of removing it should be in favor of wiping out all highlights in his infobox. This is non-sensical. I would suppose that these people want every last highlight removed from Jabari Parker's infobox. People are making Presidential arguments. If we set policy for politician infoboxes based on what is important for Presidents, Mayors and City Councilmen would have no infoboxes. We have to determine what is important for people of different levels of notability. Nothing in Jeremy Lin's infobox would belong in Kobe Bryant's infobox, much like you can't compare a city councilman to Barack Obama. Can someone tell me how we would be helping the reader by removing everything from infoboxes like Lin's or Parker's. Yes it makes sense from the perspective of Kobe Bryant to say things are not important. The NBA project is not just about its Hall of Fame members. There are many levels of notability and we should consider the Lin's, Norris Cole's and Parker's in any highlight guideline.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tony - YOU were the one who made the presidential argument. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the Rising Star designation. There are 2 different issues: A) should there be a tiered system where an honor could show up on one player's infobox and not on anothers' is hey are more accomplished, and B) are there some achievements that are not notable enough for the infobox no matter who achieves them. I have no problem with A. Rikster2 (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

When I said "People are making Presidential arguments", I meant people are saying things are not important because they are not important enough to merit inclusion in articles of people who are at the highest level of notability for the sport, which is like comparing Presidents to City Councilmen to set one rule for what is important for politicians. We need a tiered system for infobox highlights to account for the non-HOF type of player.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

After some thinking, I am willing to compromise. Rising Star should only be included for those who had no other NBA awards. But for those who had other NBA awards, it shouldn't be included, i.e. Kyrie Irving.—Chris!_c/t 21:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is time for some of the other WP:NBA project members to weigh in. There are several articles waiting for consensus on this, particularly the Summer League question. Come on, guys, I know you watch the page! Rikster2 (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't feel that strongly either way. I don't think these things are crucial, but I don't think they're harmful. Zagalejo^^^ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that Summer League MVP should be on a player's infobox, because college awards are typically on a player's infobox, and this is just as significant. NBA Fan44 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I argue that NPOY for college players is more significant than Summer League MVP.—Chris!_c/t 22:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that NPOY for college players is more significant, but I think the Summer League MVP is more significant than an All-Conference selection, and those are sometimes included in infoboxes. NBA Fan44 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to withdraw the NBASL MVP. I think it is the result of limited formal play. I.E., only unsigned players and those below a certain experience threshold are eligible. The caliber of competition is similar to that faced by the NBADL MVP. However, the play is for only 5 games. I think since record keeping for summer league play is so temporaary and hidden it is something that probably should be excluded from WP infoboxes. I think the discussion here should be focussed on confirming that Rising Star honors are notable in the absence of better infobox highlights.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need to act like a PR firm and embellish the infobox with obscure "honors". Also, MOS:INFOBOX advises "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Being a professional player in the NBA is rare, and playing even for a partial season is a big accomplishment and likely the true highlight of many players careers. I consider Rising Star and Summer League MVP to be almost like news events; they will get some coverage when they happen, but I dont think the honor has much enduring notability and is probably rarely mentioned again in relation to that individual. It probably passes WP:NOTDIARY to be worth being mentioned in prose, but should not be in an infobox. I agree with Rikster2 that "There has to be a lower bar somewhere." We dont need to over-glorify lesser honors. A lot of casual NBA fans dont even know what a Rising Star is, or can't tell one summer league from another. On the other hand, most understand the concept of being all-conference in college, and it's more likely to mentioned in a player's obituary than his being a summer MVP or a Rising Star.—Bagumba (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Dream Team

Please join the discussion at Talk:1992_United_States_men's_Olympic_basketball_team#Reqested_move to rename "1992 United States men's Olympic basketball team" to "Dream Team (basketball)".—Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Matt Carroll's status

Anyone know what Matt Carroll's status is? He's listed as a free agent at the Bobcats' roster page [3], but Carroll had a player option that he said he would pick up: [4]. I don't recall seeing any recent press releases (or any other news) about him. Some sites list him as a free agent, but others don't. FWIW, the Bobcat's PR guy on Twitter was retweeting stuff from Carroll earlier today: [5] Zagalejo^^^ 05:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Popular pages

Am I the only one who didn't know Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Popular_pages existed?—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that before! That's interesting. Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a link from the project page.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Team all-time leading scorer

User:Jay Starz has been adding team all-time leading scorer to player's infobox. Should we do that?—Chris!_c/t 03:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered by it, although we should draw the line somewhere so that we're not listing every conceivable statistical accomplishment. (For example, I wouldn't recommend adding "all-time team leader in minutes" to the infobox, or "all-time team leader in field goal percentage".) Zagalejo^^^ 05:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Save it for prose. I'm of the thinking that if it wouldn't be in the lead if the article was an FA, it shouldn't be in the infobox. Most franchise leaders would already have a sizeable infobox already. Having # retired or being in team HOF would be more notable.—Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bagumba. We can't have everything.—Chris!_c/t 02:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zagalejo. We should add team leading scorers only. -User:Jay Starz (UTC)

Zagalejo said he was "not too bothered by it", which I took as more ambivalence than an endorsement to add. Can you provide a reason why it should be in the infobox when it can be mentioned in prose? Bear in mind that MOS:INFOBOX says, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose."—Bagumba (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor infobox formatting question

I feel silly asking about such a minor point, but is convention for the years a player attended college "2004–2008" or "2004–08?" I don't actually care, but I have been adding these to a number of players with other edits (using the 4-digit year format) and just noticed that another editor is changing these to the 2-digit format. Again, I'll happily comply with the convention and this certainly isn't worth edit warring over, but it feels like consistency is needed. Personally, I have no preference but the 4-digit format seems to be more prevalent (meaning less editing needed to create consistency). Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

4 digits, to be consistent with the NBA years format. See FA Tim Duncan.—Bagumba (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thx, I'll leave a note for the other editor. Rikster2 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Project Coordinators

I've noticed that the NBA WikiProject has gotten very big, and has several topics that need a lot of work, so I wanted to ask/propose, why don't we have coordinators or a staff board?, to help the project in it's reformation. Jay Starz (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need the bureaucracy of official titles. Anybody is free to start and coordinate a task. Just do it.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And there already is a list of tasks on WP:NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but i'm not refering to coordinate the tasks, I'm talking about having, lets say like a board of 10 advisors, that would descuss the situations of the project, and make the official guidelines when it comes to player pages, awards, notable moments, etc. Jay Starz (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The "advisers" are anyone who wants to participate in this project. We operate by consensus of everyone, not a select group.—Bagumba (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Advisor" is also correct, but the point is that if coordinators are selected, it would give the project more structure, and more of the NBA-related problems could be easly solved. Just want the best for the project. Jay Starz (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't need this kind of bureaucracy which distracts us from improving this project.—Chris!_c/t 22:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would distract us, I think it would be a great idea. User:Jay StarzJay Starz (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Aside from bragging rights, why can't someone just be a defacto lead?—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There simply aren't enough active NBA editors to create a separate class of project coordinators. Zagalejo^^^ 04:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the others. There isn't much point in this. Not to mention I am not even sure I can count 10 active basketball editors that I can think of. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No point to this at all. All of the coordination required is found here at WT:NBA. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

High school POY

Similar to #Consolidating College POY, we should consolidate HS national awards. For example, LeBron James will be

• 2× High school national player of the year (2002–2003)

instead of

• Naismith Prep Player of the Year (2003)
• 2× Gatorade National Player of the Year (2002–2003)
• 2× USA Today National Player of the Year (2002-2003)

—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this if we are going to set up the HS NPOY article like the college NPOY. Not sure what to do about Gatorade since it is based on non-athletic attributes as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

no more do than the Wooden Award in college hoops. I'd argue Gatorade is mostly about the basketball skill of the individual with a few disqualifiers, same as the Wooden. Rikster2 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

ESPY Awards

I added the "ESPY NBA Player of the Year" award to a player's infobox, because it is an NBA-based award. Just wanted to see what you guys think. Shoul it be added there, in prose, or none? I think it should be put in the infobox, but only if it is the Best NBA player award, not the other ones like Best Male athlete or Best Breakthrough. User:Jay Starz —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions have determined that only NBA official awards, and a few very select high profile college/high school highlight should be included. ESPYs are not on the same level. IMO, they are based on popularity. So, I think they should be in prose.—Chris!_c/t 20:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It should definitely be in List of career achievements by LeBron James. No opinion on prose (slightly inclined to think it is just ESPN hype). It doesn't belong in the infobox as it is already full of more significant awards that are awarded by the NBA itself. Per MOS:INFOBOX, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose".—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you both on some part, but I think that we should only allow the Best NBA Player award for infobox. User:Jay Starz —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside of ESPN, how often does anyone mention past ESPY award winners years later?—Bagumba (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No one really cares about ESPY awards.—Chris!_c/t 03:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

big NO vote for including ESPY awards in the info of for anyone. Come on, people! Rikster2 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

ESPY awards can be included in the article, but are clearly not notable enough to be included in the infobox. NBA Fan44 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:National Basketball Association head coaches

I have been doing heavy category maintenance on basketball articles lately and have noticed an issue with NBA category hierarchy. Because head coach categories exist for each team, Category:National Basketball Association head coaches seems to be a totally redundant parent category 100% of the time. I would propose deleting the category and up merging any ancillary content to Category:National Basketball Association head coaches by team. There is also an opportunity to eliminate Category:National Basketball Association general managers and Category:National Basketball Association executives in a similar way, though this would require creating categories for some teams. Is there a way we can at least eliminate the redundant head coach category? I was going to CfD it, but figured I'd bring it up here first. Rikster2 (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There may be a handful of cases in which there is no team-specific head coach category. I'm thinking about some of those forgotten teams from the 1940s, like the Waterloo Hawks or the Providence Steamrollers. Of course, it wouldn't be too difficult to create such categories. Zagalejo^^^ 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Minnesota Timberwolves all-time roster (A–K)

I created this article, and nominated it for featured list status. A reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Minnesota Timberwolves all-time roster (A–K)/archive1 wanted me to discuss the style of this list. Here is what the list looked like before I expanded the columns, which saved around 5,000 bytes and allowed for the "points", "rebounds", and "minutes played" columns to be sortable. I would like to gain a consensus on which to use, and if there is any information I could include in the list that isn't there already. Albacore (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Albacore and I have previously talked a bit in the context of the Timberwolves article about what would be the best things to have in a standardized list format across teams. Personally, I'd be in favor of something along the lines of Name, Years, Position, College, Nationality Flag, Points, and Games Played. I personally think that expanding to other statistics, while effectively demonstrating that some players have abilities beyond scoring baskets, just makes the table too big and can be better served on the individual player pages. That is of course just my opinion, and I'm interested to hear what others think on the subject. matt91486 (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend to follow other similar NBA FLs, e.g. Charlotte Bobcats all-time roster or Dallas Mavericks all-time roster and statistics leaders, or provide strong justification for starting yet another model.—Bagumba (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that WP:NBA only has one all-time roster FL, which is the Charlotte Bobcats all-time roster. Anyway, as the editor who created the new model in Dallas Mavericks all-time roster and Miami Heat all-time roster, I think I need to explain my reasons for the change:

• The existence of nationality/flag columns was opposed and was discussed in MOS:FLAG's talk page. Most of the opposing arguments are about the relevancy of nationalities in a players list and the fact that not every players has represented their national team. As a compromise, I decided to remove the nationality/flag column and created a separate "International players" section (based on a suggestion from another editor). This section allows us to include more information that previously can't be included in a table, such as multiple nationalities and multiple national teams. Omitting nationality column also reduce the table width significantly.
• I omitted school/college/club column because I believe there is no significant relation between a player's college/club prior to the draft with the all-time roster list. Some of these players are not drafted by the franchise and has been playing for other franchises before. I think this column is more appropriate for draft history lists.
• I omitted the statistics (games/minutes, points, rebounds, assists) because I'm afraid that they won't be regularly updated. Charlotte Bobcats all-time roster is outdated and inaccurate. Not to mention that the statistics has not been updated since 2009 despite all the updates to add new players. I agree that these statistics is important to show the players' contribution, performance and importance to the franchise, but I'm not sure that these lists can be regularly maintained in the long term.
• In exchange for omitting number of games/minutes played, I added a column for number of seasons played with the franchise. Although this is less informative than games/minutes played, this column serves a similar purpose with them.
• In exchange for omitting statistics, I added a separate section for franchise leaders in each statistics (both for regular season and playoffs). This gives a reader a brief information on the players' contribution and importance to the franchise.
• I added a column for notes and achievement which is used to list the awards/accolades that the player won while representing/playing the franchise (similar to the head coaches FLs). I also added a note for expansion draft picks because they are the first players to join the franchise.

Anyway, I'm not saying that every all-time roster must follow the Mavericks or the Heat format. On the contrary, I hope my opinions can help this discussion to improve and create a better model for all-time roster, including the Mavericks and the Heat lists. — MT (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Striking my comment above that the Mavs roster is an FL per MT's comment.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a little shocked that a franchise with such a short history and relatively few players was split into two pages. This should definitely be merged into one page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would really encourage one article as well. I would also argue (though many might disagree) that this and several other NBA all-time roster lists are over-referenced. I don't see the value in referencing each entry to a separate page on basketball-reference.com when you could reference the whole shebang with this link, which would be updated as new players join the team. Rikster2 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As the list is currently structured, the indiv refs are needed to get info like nationality, school, and position of each player.—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, like I said many will disagree with me, but the purpose of the list is to document players who played for the T-Wolves - and the link verifies that as well as statistical information. The position, nationality and college are all verifiable either from that basketball-reference page, or it is already verified and cited on the players' Wikipedia article. I find it hard to believe that anyone would challenge that information based off the list entry itself and I haven't really found a WP policy yet that would tell me that citing individual entries in a case like this (and generating a list of over 100 endnotes) is required or worthwhile. Just my two cents and putting it out there because I think we get a little reference goofy (certainly with positive intent, though). Rikster2 (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

To me the strange point is that there are two NBA FL without a standardized model. It seems like something that should be sorted out and standardized because the same information is going to be available for every team. matt91486 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to follow the essay WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, which says to use the sources used by other WP articles, not the articles themselves. The way I look at it, if anyone actually wanted to verify an article/list, its more reliable (and easier for the reader) to have the references and footnotes on the page itself as opposed to guessing which WP article and which sources in said article the information was taken from. I see it as a level of detail that I would expect from a mature article like an FL, but I personally wouldn't delete information from an article where I generally trust a source somewhere backs it up.—Bagumba (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But that info is always sourced in the article (or should be). It comes down to the fact that - to me - lists are not articles. Citing them like you would an article seems silly to me and a waste of space. 100+ references from the same site is a waste IMO. But I'm not asking anyone to change it, just stating my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

MOS:LIST describes them as "list articles". Anyhow, understand your sentiment.—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

DJSasso in the FL review suggested that a source that has a list of links to the players bios, which in turn has information used in the article can be used as a general ref. I am in agreement in this case where the refs are self-contained by a top level list.—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I have merged this into one list. Albacore (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

An issue raised in the the Minnesota FLR involving the current listing of nationality in NBA FLs and whether country of birth should be used instead.

A hockey FL, List of Chicago Blackhawks players, lists the nation a player was born in, not a player's representative nationality. This seems appropriate for many NBA lists as well, as in the past at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_19#More_flags it was mentioned that nationality was listed to convey the notable increase of international players in the NBA. Moreover, an "international player" is defined by the NBA as a player who was born outside of the continental United States. Currrently, lists like NBA Most Valuable Player Award list players like Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan as American in the table, but need to add a footnote that they were born somewhere outside of the US. Listing the nation of birth would alleviate the need for footnotes, and make apparent what is really needed to determine if a player is international i.e. where they were born.—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it makes little sense to list the birthplace instead of the representative nationality since for sportpersons birthplace does not usually convey nationality. For example, it is weird to list Luol Deng under Sudan when he plays for Great Britain. His relationship to Sudan is not as significant as his relationship to Great Britain. And I don't see how this can alleviate the need for footnotes. Instead of footnotes for birthplace we now need footnotes for representative nationality.—Chris!_c/t 19:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Would we even need to list nationality? The reason I understood that "Nationality" is currently listed is to convey whether they are "international" players, but the NBA's definition of "international" centers on a player's birth country, not their actual nationality.—Bagumba (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of birthplace is only for those who was born in US territory, not other countries I believe. Luol Deng is not listed as a Sudanese by NBA. I don't have time to check right now but will do that later.—Chris!_c/t 19:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationality isn't really relevant to this type of list in the long run probably as you say, so I don't see that you would need to have a foot note to explain the difference. Essentially it would be a short form of place of birth. There are always going to be oddities such as the player you mention. But personally place of birth to me is much more important than representative nationality in a list like this. Now if it were a list talking about international basketball then yes representative would be more important. And as Bagumba mentions I do believe it is there to denote players the NBA considers international, and as he says that is determined by birth location. -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If nationality isn't really relevant to the list, and I can accept that opinion, then the course of action is to remove that entirely. But replacing nationality with birthplace is not right. I disagree with the opinion that place of birth is more relevant. IMO, it is not. For Luol Deng, do people care about the fact that he was born in Sudan? Maybe for those who is trying to obtain that info, but not really for others. They want to know that he plays for Great Britain. And as nationality is often complex, it is not feasible to just let the column does the explaining. We need footnotes to provide clarification.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishmt0423 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 August 2012‎ (UTC)

You were previously a proponent of nationality at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_19#More_flags, and you convinced me that there is some merit based on the notion of "international players" in sources. Based on the FLR discussion, I still think international information is relevant, but it is better conveyed by the more succinct country of birth.—Bagumba (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am still a proponent of nationality. But there is a giant opposition in the inclusion of nationality out there and I am starting to feel tired of fighting that battle. If consensus is against the inclusion of nationality, then I will not fight it. But that is a different issue. I still think nationality is relevant, but I disagree that nationality is better conveyed by birthplace. I maintain that people care less about birthplace than representative nationality.—Chris!_c/t 22:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a confusing issue because of the loose use of "nationality" when it comes to the NBA and international players. Sources refer to "nationality", but they also want to count people like Duncan and Olajuwon as "international" even though they are American citizens. For example, this NBA doc that lists Duncan's nationality as Virgin Islands. While I agree that many sources refer to a player's "nationality", what they really are ultimately driving at is whether he was born in the US or not. I see value in adding some indication that a player is "international" to reflect sources fascination with the increase in overseas players in the NBA. I otherwise find nationality (in it's non-NBA sense) to be trivial. I guess the issue is do we continue to list "nationality" with all the footnotes just because of sources convoluted definition of "international", or does country of birth best drive home the point of overseas players.—Bagumba (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite confusing. I do not think it is appropriate for NBA to list Duncan and Olajuwon as "international" when their "nationality" is American. I think we should disregard their definition and just go with common sense. Duncan and Olajuwon should be listed American in our lists. While this debate is not about flags, WP:MOSFLAG#Use of flags for sportspersons says flags should only indicate the sportsperson's representative nationality. So, it seems to me Wikipedia put more emphasis on representative nationality in the context of sports.—Chris!_c/t 22:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The NBA is actually contradicting themselves because they did not list Carlos Boozer, Donté Greene or Anthony Randolph as international players even though they were born outside the United States. Anyway I prefer using representative nationality because place of birth could mislead some readers. Just consider how weird the following examples are: Tony Parker (Belgium), Carlos Boozer (West Germany), Steve Nash (South Africa), Steve Kerr (Lebanon) or Dominique Wilkins (France). Not to mention that these examples seem to violate MOS:FLAG. — MT (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG is clear about no flags in infoboxes of bios. It is vague on lists. I think the problem with infobox is that there isn't a key as in a list, where it can be specified the exact context the country/flag is being used (representative, birth, citizenship, etc). Anyways, let not complicate things with flag issues just yet.—Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Boozer, et al, I know its weak, but its what the sources consistently say. Maybe they mean born outside and grew up outside, but it would be unclear what the cutoff age is. Is it WP:OR to bring up the inconsistencies?—Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the WP:FOOTY wikiproject uses representative nationality to override any other consideration; so birthplace would then be the secondary defining criteria under the assumption that they would represent that country in an international situation. Of course, flags are subject to change with naturalization or other circumstances, as pointed out by MT. Serge Ibaka or WNBA player Becky Hammon would be other recent examples of naturalizations affecting international play. matt91486 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Defining "international"

Actually, I think the problem with statement in List of foreign NBA players about intl players being anyone born out of the US is that it is not directly supported by sources. The definition seems to be original research. Most sources will list examples of the intl players, but never explicitly define the criteria used. The lead was unsourced before today, when I found and added three sources, but they all just lists of players without exactly saying why someone like Boozer is not counted but Duncan is. Not sure what to do with the lead description in the list. If we dont know the specific criteria, should we even list any country in a list or simply mark that the NBA considers them international?—Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Boozer was born on a US military base, so maybe that's why the NBA doesn't count him. That's just a guess, though. Most likely, the NBA doesn't have consistent rules about this stuff. Zagalejo^^^ 05:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a source with quote from NBA. Better than nothing, but still has wiggle room.—Bagumba (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Kevin McHale page move request

There is an active request to move Kevin McHale happening at Talk:Kevin McHale. Essentially the proposal is to make "Kevin McHale" a disambiguation page and move the Celtics player to "Kevin McHale (basketball)." The proposal is in part due to the relatively increasing popularity of Glee actor Kevin McHale. Just thought I'd post in case anyone has strong feelings about it. Rikster2 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Miami Heat

I came across the article several days ago, and have since reverted an unexplained change in a header in favor of a previous and more accurate title [6]. Aside from asking for more attention to this, and help in preventing this from becoming an unending contretemps, the article has greater concerns that merit attention from those who are invested in this project: the long season by season history is nearly totally free of sources. There's also the standard fondness for sportfan hyperbole, a small amount of which I've trimmed. At bottom, the article's quality is compromised by the lack of cites, which appears to have been the case for years, at least since it was rejected for Good Article status in November 2009. Long time no cites. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Those section headers seem to be a problem in many team articles. People are always fiddling with them to highlight their favorite players. Part of me would like to do away with them entirely, and just use dates. Sourcing is not an insurmountable task, especially for a team like the Heat, who have only been around since the late 1980s. Someone just has to pull up their sleeves and do the work. Zagalejo^^^ 19:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Dates, perhaps with the exception of the most extraordinary athletes (i.e. Babe Ruth for the 20s Yankees), would be preferable, and it would be nice if the folks who show so much interest in writing about their favorite teams and players troubled themselves with sources. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The unified basketball infobox and the Australian NBL

I posted this on WP:Basketball too, but I know that page doesn't get as much traffic, so I'll repeat. I know that basketball infoboxes were unified awhile back (the discussion is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball), but it seems like Template:Infobox NBL player is still in heavy use. Should these templates also convert? I'd be happy to do some of the work, but I don't want to stir up a hornets' nest if these are different for a reason. Any reason these shouldn't be migrated to Template:Infobox basketball biography? Rikster2 (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could also merge with this one? I know that then much work should be done, but anyway... --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 18:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That might work. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, are we still using Template:Infobox NBA biography? I thought the unified box replaced it, but I have seen it added just today. Rikster2 (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone got answers? The NBL box seems to have a field for "junior association" and lists metric height/weight first - otherwise it seems to have the same stuff. Given the movement between leagues, it would be nice to get these in board with the unified box but I suspect there might be some drama if I just start converting them. Rikster2 (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is of more interest to WP:WikiProject Basketball. Any changes should not impact current NBA bios without first discussing.—Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And I posted it there. However, most of the folks who collaborated on building the thing hang out here more often - including you if I'm not mistaken. Rikster2 (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd generally support a merge. You could start a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. The last related merge was at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_29#Template:Infobox_basketball_player.—Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that, but I'll probably reach out to a couple of active Australian editors first just to make sure it doesn't come as a surprise. What about the other question - do we still use Template:Infobox NBA biography? I thought part of the idea of the merge was to eliminate that so updating as players join and leave the NBA would be simpler? I ask because I have recently seen some editors overwriting the basketball infobox with the NBA one. Rikster2 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NBA biography is currently a redirect to Template:Infobox basketball biography. People who use it are probably just cut and pasting from older articles. Is there any harm?—Bagumba (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just if a player moves from the NBA to some other league (for example the basketball bio template now codes Euroleague team colors, which I think is an enhancement). Rikster2 (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Since it is a redirect, Template:Infobox NBA biography should have the same features as Template:Infobox basketball biography.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Graphic Lab

Is here some graphist? Knicks is the only NBA team which hasn't SVG logo :( I know it isn't so important, but maybe --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Career highlights order

Wondering if there is any consensus on the order of highlights in a players infoxbox. Some are listed chronologically, while others try to group under an implied order of importance, such as:

Dwight Howard

• 3× NBA Defensive Player of the Year (2009–2011)
• 6× NBA All-Star (2007–2012)
• 5× All-NBA First Team (2008–2012)
• All-NBA Third Team (2007)
• 4× NBA All-Defensive First Team (2009–2012)
• NBA All-Defensive Second Team (2008)
• NBA All-Rookie First Team (2005)
• NBA Slam Dunk Champion (2008)
• Naismith Prep Player of the Year (2004)

Tim Duncan

• 4× NBA Champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007)
• 3× NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005)
• 2× NBA Most Valuable Player (2002–2003)
• NBA Rookie of the Year (1998)
• 13× NBA All-Star (1998, 2000–2011)
• 9× All-NBA First Team (1998–2005, 2007)
• 3× All-NBA Second Team (2006, 2008–2009)
• All-NBA Third Team (2010)
• 8× All-Defensive First Team (1999–2003, 2005, 2007–2008)
• 5× All-Defensive Second Team (1998, 2004, 2006, 2009–2010)
• NBA All-Rookie First Team (1998)
• NBA All-Star Game MVP (2000)
• USBWA College Player of the Year (1997)
• Naismith College Player of the Year (1997)
• John Wooden Award (1997)
• 2× ACC Player of the Year (1996–1997)

I dont mind trying to order based on "significance", but what if Howard never gets another Defensive POY, and gets more All-Stars and All-NBAs. Does DPOY still stay on top? And should all All-Star honors be grouped together (i.e. AS appearance followed by contests)?—Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer ordering based on "significance" as it makes more sense. If we order chronologically, it may lead to NBA champion listed at the end.—Chris!_c/t 02:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I added Duncan above for another example. Order could be something like:

1. NBA Finals
2. Finals MVPs
3. MVPs
4. All-Stars
5. All-Star MVPs
6. All-NBAs
7. All-Defense
8. ROY
9. All-Rookie
10. College

What about things like 6th man award, Defensive Player of the Year, Most Improved, Sportsmanship Award, Slam Dunk, 3 point shootout?—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What about professional awards from leagues outside the US? How about minor league awards like the NBDL or CBA? Might want to run a couple of other guys through the criteria as well. Bob McAdoo might be a good person to try as he was Euroleague MVP. Rikster2 (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

One other point - is being named to the NBA All-Rookie team really more significant than winning a major college player of the year award such as the Wooden or Naismith? I don't really think so, I actually think of the All-Rookie team as being sort of minor. Rikster2 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but its easier to have consistency with other articles to list pro achievements first. AFAIK, its never been discussed but project members, non-project members, and unregistered users alike follow it. With such a large group of editors, it might be best to keep it simple and not open up subjectivity of interspersed highlights. This practice seems to be the case in NFL project as well.—Bagumba (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Some might argue that an NBA All-Rookie is a better player, having achieved it at the pro level,than a college POY. What about conference POY over ROY. Does priority depend on conference? We are opening up a can of worms if we go there.—Bagumba (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

yeah, no way is making the all-rookie team on par with being National Player of the Year in college. Nobody even remembers who made the all rookie team five years later. No biggie though, I think grouping by league with NBA being the top rung makes sense. In addition to the major college awards and championships, I would recommend listing leading the nation in a major statistical category (but not leading a conference, that is small time) and major national records (though not conference or school records). Rikster2 (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think until you have 5 pro highlights or national awards, conference stuff should be included. For some pro players, even high school awards should still be in the infobox. E.g., Jerod Ward. You have to set a policy that covers the whole spectrum of players, not just the NBA MVP types.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not like the info wouldn't be in the article at all, it's just keeping the infobox clean. Rikster2 (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the list above is fine, but if a guy has no highlights at that level, a secondary list of honors is acceptable for a pro. Suppose Demetri McCamey has a good enough summer league to get a pro contract (D-League or NBA), I think the reader is better off with the current infobox highlights than nothing at all. If the above-mentioned Jerod Ward article were to have an infobox and there were no other pro highlights, Prep Naismith is better than nothing at all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The flip side is that people routinely see something like McCamey's accomplishments and think it's a great idea to add this to every other All-Big 10/assist champ. I guess I just don't think it's a problem if some guys don't have infobox highlights. In truth, it's probably appropriate. Rikster2 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with All-Conference and NCAA leader of pts/reb/asts. Conference leaderboard is overkill. Of course, this all gets pared once a pro player has >5 highlights.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My philosophy is the the infobox serves the same purpose as the WP:LEAD. If a guy has the type of career where conference stat leader is still in his LEAD, it is O.K. to include it in the infobox as long as the box has less than 5 highlights.

Also H.S. NPOY is O.K. if it remains one of the top 5. Think about a LaVell Blanchard. What is the most memorable highlight among his highlights. You might argue that the very most significant is Gatorade NPOY. If the infobox is a McLEAD, then it should accentuate the content of the LEAD. There are certain things that should get nixed once a guy has enough pro highlights, but not just because he has played at the next level.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have a couple of issues.
  1. Looking at the Duncan example above, I think we should make it a policy to merge the college NPOY awards onto one line (see the Chicago guys that I do this for: Anthony Davis and Evan Turner).
  2. I have assumed responsibility for a lot of marginal NBA players. I.e., I have responsibility for 5 players who start play today as free agents in the Las Vegas NBA Summer League (John Shurna, Demetri McCamey, Manny Harris, Matt Howard, and DeShawn Sims). I acknowledge that since only Harris has NBA experience, only one is currently relevant to the project, but I hope that two or three of these guys get NBA contracts, even if they are D-League destined. However, can we clarify college highlights. For these guys being Big Ten Scoring or Assists champions and Multiple times All-Conference Players are towards the top of their career accomplishments. Can we clarify what goes above what for these types. Also, if NPOY goes on the list does consensus AA go on the list? There are actually more of these types of players than there are league MVP types, although weighted by page views they are less important. Nonetheless, if you look at a roster of even a team like the current NBA champions, there are more of these types than MVP types.
  3. Since I do a lot of high school guys like Jabari Parker and Jahlil Okafor, I am wondering if National Prep Player of the Year Award count as permanent highlight entries. Also both of these examples have MVP awards for age-group delimited international play. What are the merits of these awards on the overall list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to suggest to simplify matters by dealing independently with

1. Priority of highlights solely within the same level (e.g. relative importance of NBA highlights among themselves and separate from other leagues or college)

2. Arrangement of highlights at different levels (i.e.. once we determined the importance of highlights within a given level, how do we present with highlight from other levels). The previous consensus documented at {{Infobox basketball biography}} is "Players with 5+ professional highlights should limit college highlights to NCAA championships, awards at Template:Men's college basketball award navbox, and NCAA Tournament MOPs." Current informal practice seems to be that pro highlights are chronologically listed before college highlights.—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

O.K. it sounds like players with fewer than 5 professional highlights are in a different class (and probably the majority, IMO in terms of articles, but not pageviews). If this is an attempt to straighten out the players with 5 or more professional highlights, ignore my comments other than the issue of the NPOY, which I think should be consistently reduced to one line.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My guess is most editors in the NBA project just use without alteration what was already listed in the infobox for NPOY when coverting from {{Infobox NCAA athlete}} to {{Infobox basketball biography}}. Is there consensus at WikiProject College Basketball for listing NPOYs together?—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well typically, almost every guy is at his peak potential when he is declared NPOY and he goes into the draft as a result. Thus, the award is only in {{Infobox NCAA athlete}} for 10 weeks before a guy is a lottery pick and it is moved over to {{Infobox basketball biography}}. As a result, I am not sure how much of a concern it is at WP:CBBALL. In addition, I just started merging these when Evan Turner became a part of my sphere of influence as it were. Keep in mind that right now no articles with {{Infobox NCAA athlete}} have NPOY and probably 100 with {{Infobox basketball biography}} have it. I am not sure why this means it should be settled at WP:CBBALL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree its not a CBBALL issue the way players go pro now. Let's discuss.—Bagumba (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is it possible to merge 1st, 2nd and 3rd team All-NBA and All-Defensive Team lines as a matter of policy?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a big discrepancy between being named on one team vs the other for All-NBA. I'm not as tied to All-Defense, but it's more straight forward for editors to make it consistent. This was decided by previous consensus. What is your reason to change?—Bagumba (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My thinking is that an objective here is probably to get guys who have a lot of lines of highlights some line reductions. Guys Like Walton and Duncan, could get back toward 10-12 lines with moves like this coupled with the NPOY change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Torn between thinking it is important info, and not fully convinced its too long after the NPOY changes. I will wait to see others' arguments on 2nd/3rd team.—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think 2nd or 3rd team All-NBA is a big deal - one of the top 15 players in the best league in the world. 2nd team All-Defensive or All-Rookie is another matter. I don't think either needs to be in the infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I like to retain all 2nd/3rd team info. Space is not a concern to me as only really good players' infoboxes will have multiple lines of 1st/2nd/3rd team.—Chris!_c/t 00:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Rikster: All-Rookie is the highest honor for a lot of these players that never become superstars. I dont mind removing it from players like Duncan where they are minor, esp. when their ROY was already mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Order of NBA-specific highlights

{Discussion branched from above)

Order of NBA specific highlights could be something like:

1. NBA Finals
2. Finals MVPs
3. MVPs
4. All-Stars
5. All-Star MVPs
6. All-NBAs
7. All-Defense
8. ROY
9. All-Rookie

What about things like 6th man award, Defensive Player of the Year, Most Improved, Sportsmanship Award, Slam Dunk, 3 point shootout?—Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Even in two FAs this is inconsistent:

Michael Jordan

• 6× NBA Champion (1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998)
• 6× NBA Finals MVP (1991–1993, 1996–1998)
• 5× NBA Most Valuable Player (1988, 1991–1992, 1996, 1998)
• 14× NBA All-Star (1985–1993, 1996–1998, 2002–2003)
• 10× NBA scoring champion (1987–1993, 1996–1998)
• 3× NBA steals champion (1988, 1990, 1993)
• NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1988)
• 10× All-NBA First Team (1987–1993, 1996–1998)
• All-NBA Second Team (1985)
• 9× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1988–1993, 1996–1998)
• NBA Rookie of the Year (1985)
• NBA All-Rookie First Team (1985)
• 3× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1988, 1996, 1998)
• 2× NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion (1987–1988)
• NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
• #23 Retired by Chicago Bulls and Miami Heat

Tim Duncan

• 4× NBA Champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007)
• 3× NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005)
• 2× NBA Most Valuable Player (2002–2003)
• NBA Rookie of the Year (1998)
• 13× NBA All-Star (1998, 2000–2011)
• 9× All-NBA First Team (1998–2005, 2007)
• 3× All-NBA Second Team (2006, 2008–2009)
• All-NBA Third Team (2010)
• 8× All-Defensive First Team (1999–2003, 2005, 2007–2008)
• 5× All-Defensive Second Team (1998, 2004, 2006, 2009–2010)
• NBA All-Rookie First Team (1998)
• NBA All-Star Game MVP (2000)

Where does non-MVP awards (like ROY) go? Which stat champions do we list (scoring for sure, but others like steals, field goal %, etc also)? This isnt the most critical issue around, but it is also low-hanging fruit that should be easy to come to a consensus and have some consistency in our FAs.—Bagumba (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe list by chron. order based on the year awarded (after 1 to 9).—Chris!_c/t 01:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Chron is good. I'll leave the specific stats to list open ended for now. Adding #10:

1. NBA Finals
2. Finals MVPs
3. MVPs
4. All-Stars
5. All-Star MVPs
6. All-NBAs
7. All-Defense
8. ROY
9. All-Rookie
10. List remaining in reverse chronological order (most recent ones first)
    • 6th man award
    • Defensive Player of the Year
    • Most Improved
    • Sportsmanship Award
    • Slam Dunk
    • 3 point shootout
    • NBA regular season stats leader

—Bagumba (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is the order we should adopt project-wide since nobody disagree.—Chris!_c/t 00:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Consolidating College POY

{Discussion branched from above)

If college national player of the year honors are to be combined, Bill Walton seems to be the best use case:

• 3× Naismith College Player of the Year (1972–1974)
• 3× USBWA Player of the Year (1972–1974)
• 3× Adolph Rupp Trophy (1972–1974)
• 2× Helms Foundation College Player of the Year (1972–1973)
• 3× Sporting News College Player of the Year (1972–1974)
• 2× AP College Player of the Year (1972–1973)

Proposals on how this should look?—Bagumba (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We are being tasked with coming up with a policy that is consistent for the four-year college career era and the one-and-done era. I propose that each year of POY gets one year. Thus, Anthony Davis would have one line:

• 2012 National Player of the Year (AP, Naismith, Robertson, Rupp, TSN, Wooden)

Meanwhile, Bill Walton would get three lines:

• 1972 National Player of the Year (AP, Helms, Naismith, Robertson, Rupp, TSN)
• 1973 National Player of the Year (AP, Helms, Naismith, Robertson, Rupp, TSN)
• 1974 National Player of the Year (Naismith, Robertson, Rupp, TSN)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. If a player only wins one NPOY award in a year, there is no need to merge that year. Thus, Draymond Green would say

• 2012 NABC National Player of the Year

And John Wall would say

• 2010 Adolph Rupp Trophy--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX advies "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." What if we just listed "National Player of the Year" in the infobox w/o the organization?

• National Player of the Year (2012)
• 3× National Player of the Year (1972–74)

It seems more compact, and the details can be placed in the body. Organizations could be limited to those listed at List of U.S. men's college basketball national player of the year awards. I dont think we go to this level of detail when listing All-Americans. Also, is there a concept of a consensus NPOY on par with consensus AA? The NFL project also seems to list All-Pro without specifics about the issuing organization.—Bagumba (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much of a problem with that suggestion. It saves several lines for a lot of important players and seems reasonable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I think, I'd prefer my suggestion of one line per year because it retains all the detail of the original format, but saves lines. However, putting everything in one line is O.K. if people support it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, just listing NPOY is fine for the Infobox. As stated, the detail will be in the prose. Rikster2 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If NPOY is an accepted name of all those college awards, then it is fine with me. And if a player only wins one NPOY award then of course the actual name of that one award should be used.—Chris!_c/t 00:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mention the name in the case of just one organization, as people will look at the other ones and think something is missing (and add it). Unless we have some way to designate multiple orgs, but the whole point was to avoid that to begin with. I wouldnt mind adding "consensus" or "unanimous" if those are common terms for NPOY (still no response from anyone)—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The word "consensus" is sometimes used with NPOY awards, though it is used two different ways - either as unanimous (e.g. Kevin Durant) or near unanimous (Anthony Davis). The issue is which awards are you talking about? Everybody and their brother names a POY. The commonly accepted "big ones" are the Wooden, Naismith, AP, UPI, Helms, NABC, USBWA (Oscar Robertson Trophy) and sometimes the Rupp and TSN awards. If a guy wins all those I think you can comfortably call that "unanimous." If he wins all but one I'd still call him the consensus NPOY. Rikster2 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found a formal statement in any sources. If someone can identify them, we can update List of U.S. men's college basketball national player of the year awards with the text and refs. Wouldn't consensus just require a majority?—Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reference: http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/040408aaa.html Rikster2 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's make it like

• 3× College national player of the year (1972–74)

to be consistent with the discussion for HS NPOY. Caps are not needed since it is a generic term and not a proper noun—Bagumba (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

But the awards shold be specified, because there's many college player of the year awards, so if a player wins one or two, they should be seperate, but if a player wins them all, like Kevin Durant did, in my opinion, it should be Consensus National College Player of the Year. Jay Starz (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Point noted, but the consensus seems to be to present in compact form in the infobox, with details being provided in the prose or in a list of an exhaustive list of all honors with more detail than the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)