Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 8

<<To current talk page

Draftees

Shouldn't we wait until a drafted player has signed his contract before adding details like "XXXX is a player for the YYYY" or categories like like [[Category: ZZZZZ players]]? It's a bit tedious to wait for the official signing, but jumping to conclusions goes against official policy, WP:CRYSTAL. Especially with 2nd round draft picks who are not guaranteed a contract. --Madchester (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As a sportswriter, I definitely would not call a draftee a "player for (team name)," because it simply is not true yet. My editors would be all over me if ever wrote such a thing (though it's not on my beat — I cover high school sports). A drafted player is just that, nothing else but a player to which an NBA team holds the signing rights. The player may be signed by that team, or may not. Already some players' rights have been traded just after they were drafted. Some, particularly second-rounders, may not make it with the team and end up in Europe or the NBDL without playing a game with the team that drafted them. I have gone through all the articles on the first-round players and corrected this error, which I believe to be rather serious. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Who knows where these players will be in a few months. Zagalejo^^^ 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now edited all articles about draftees to conform to this standard. Most didn't need it — thanks, folks. All articles now have the {{2008 NBA Draft}} template applied as well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. We might want to enforce this by adding the draftees to our watchlists. I plan to in a couple of days, when the traffic dies down. —LOL ^T/_C 11:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite safe to say first rounders are on the team which owns their rights, as they have guaranteed NBA contracts. A better way of saying it is "X is a professional basketball player drafted by Y in the 2008 NBA Draft" so as to include the fact that they were drafted in the opening sentence.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In your edit summaries, you essentially claim that an individual drafted by Team A is automatically a player of Team A. By that frame of logic, wouldn't someone like Vince Carter be described as a Net, Raptor, and a Warrior? After all, he was drafted by the Warriors in the first place. Ultimately, he's only considered a Net and Raptor, since he's only had professional contracts with those clubs. (Roy Hibbert falls under a similar situation for this draft) It is a formality that most drafted players will sign with their drafted teams, but we should still wait until there are verifiable sources to confirm that. Wiki's about providing reliable info on a story, not being the first to report on a story. --Madchester (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, first-round players may not even sign with the NBA soon after being drafted (e.g. Arvydas Sabonis, Frédéric Weis, Luis Scola). —LOL ^T/_C 14:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence should only mention "[player] is a professional basketball player" for draft picks. Once they sign a contract, "for the [team]" can be added. ● 8~Hype ^@ 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And as soon as players get introduced at the team's press conference, "for the [team]" should be added, and the jersey number in the infobox, as well. ● 8~Hype ^@ 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Portland Trail Blazers on hold at GAN

Portland Trail Blazers is currently on hold at WP:GAN; it is very close to becoming one of the good articles at Wikipedia. The main obstacle is the lead, so could any of you guys take a look at the lead and make suggestions/comments on how to improve it? Thank you!--Crzycheetah 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Seattle SuperSonics merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I know there was discussion on this a few months ago, but now that the move has officially begun, I think we need to have a fuller discussion on whether to merge Seattle Supersonics with the Oklahoma City National Basketball Association team. Personally, I feel like they should merge per most precedents, see Charlotte Hornets, Vancouver Grizzlies, or Minneapolis Lakers. I like the Lakers solution, where Minneapolis Lakers redirects to History of the Los Angeles Lakers. Perhaps the same should be done with Seattle so as preserve most of the main article?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a unique situation though. The team is not "defunct". They are essentially suspended until the city gets a new expansion team. So I can see merging quite a bit into the OKC article but the Sonics article should not be a redirect. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This team move is different than the Hornets, Grizzlies, and Lakers though. Those teams moved with their name, history, team colors, logo, etc. The OKC team is leaving all of that behind in Seattle. They are going to have a shared history with any new team that moves to Seattle (and chooses to take up the SuperSonics mantle), but any history the OKC team makes from this point on will be uniquely theirs. This move has more in common with the Cleveland Browns move to become the Baltimore Ravens then it does the Vancouver Grizzlies moving to Memphis. I'm also concerned that merging the history of the SuperSonics into the article for the OKC article will overwhelm that article as a whole. I think the current treatment with a summary style in the OKC article with a link to the main article is the best way to go. One possible alternative would be to move the Sonics article to History of the Seattle SuperSonics, 1967-2008 with Seattle SuperSonics being a redirect to that article until such time a new team arrives in Seattle (if one ever does). That way you'll have a clean article for the shared history of both the OKC team and the Seattle team. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I thought the SuperSonics article should be kept, but now I am up in the air. Since the OKC team is going to retain the franchise history of the SuperSonics and "share" it with any new Seattle team (See Section 6 of the settlement.[1]), both articles are going to have some degree of duplicated franchise history information, even if we link the OKC team's "Franchise history" section to the "main" SuperSonics article as is being done now. Bobblehead's idea isn't too bad, but that still leaves the OKC team's history section the same (which isn't necessarily a horrible thing). Why does the NBA have to make it complicated? Don't think think of Wikipedia? Okiefromokla ^complaints 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is actually very similar to the Montreal Expos move to Washington. Those pages are set up much in the way the current OKC/Seattle team pages are set up. The franchise history is denoted in the infobox for the Washington Nationals, but the "pre-Washington" era is only a paragraph that links to Montreal Expos. Again, such a setup would not be chaging anything at all for the OKC/SuperSonics pages. That sounds good to me. I may be a little less "in the air" now :) Okiefromokla ^complaints 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Do not merge. I think Okiefromokla presents a very good template we can use with the Expos/Nationals articles. That way, the OKC article can present a brief summary of the history and link to the SuperSonics article for full details. Further, if/when the New Sonics start play, the current article can be moved to Seattle SuperSonics (1968-2008), the new article created with the undisambiguated title, and the shared history be included in a parallel way to the OKC team's article. Additionally, anything like season-by-season records can be set up in a template and transcluded into both teams' articles. —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Response/Comment: Concerning your logic about creating a separate article for the original Sonics team once the new one arrives, I wonder if you'd have done the same thing had Wikipedia been around when the situation most resembling this one took place in 1995. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The difference between the Browns move and the Sonics move is that the Ravens did not take the team history with them, while the Sonics history is going to be shared between the OKC team and any future Seattle team. From a history standpoint, the Ravens were treated as if they were a brand new team, so when the Browns did start back up, there weren't any problems with a shared history getting corrupted by the new team like there will be if Seattle actually gets a new team. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge: Everyone else has stated my reasons already, but the bottom line, the team that's moving to Oklahoma is NOT the "Sonics". The "Sonics" name, history, and heritage have staye behind in Seattle, so the Sonics article should also be left alone. Dknights411 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The team's history is indeed being held by the OKC franchise as part of the lawsuit settlement. It will "shared". Therefore, we can't treat OKC as a brand-spanking new team that just began in 2008. At least, not completely. We have to aknowledge the history of the OKC franchise as the same as the former SuperSonics. Okiefromokla ^complaints 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Instead of trying to find examples from baseball and football, let's take a look at the NHL, where this situation is a common occurrence. I'll direct you to Minnesota North Stars and Dallas Stars, to Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes. They all balance it out quite nicely. -MichiganCharms (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this myself. The NHL article are a prestine example of how this situation should be handeled for all sports. Dknights411 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

These NHL articles are very similar to the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals as far as how the history is presented within the article, as I mentioned above. Okiefromokla ^complaints 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The settlement leaves Seattle in Seattle, and creates all but a new franchise in Oklahoma City. It's some kind of shared history, but I see that fading away once the Sonics are reestablished, assuming that they are. This is exactly the same case as the Cleveland Browns, except that the NBA hasn't guaranteed a franchise.

Once again, this is not the same case as the Browns because the OKC team is retaining the franchise history of the SuperSonics. Okiefromokla ^complaints 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Montreal Expos are seperate from Washington Nationals. Why can't these two be seperate, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth Matrix (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Much like the NHL articles that have been used as examples, I think the Sonics article should remain. The SuperSonics and Seattle have a 41 year history that shouldn't be distilled into a couple of paragraphs to fit the OKC article. On a personal note: I feel you for Sonics fans. Went through the same thing when the Hornets moved. I just wish Charlotte would've had the foresight to keep the name, colors and history like Seattle. :( The Bobcats just aren't the same right now. Geologik (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merger - The Oklahoma City team is essentially an expansion team like the Baltimore Ravens were when they left Cleveland. It's possible Seattle gets a new franchise in a few years. According to David Stern if Seattle renovates KeyArena they will be first on the list for an expansion team or if someone decides to move there. Like the new Cleveland Browns, I can see that Seattle team using the SuperSonics name and they'll have all the history from the former franchise. I would write a blurb about the Sonics on the Oklahoma City page, but have a link to the SuperSonics page. --FourteenClowns (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Do not Merge a lengthy discussion on either Talk:Montreal Expos, or Talk:Washington Nationals came to this conclusion on a very similar move (Expos moving to Washington, obviously). Precedent has been established Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Do not merge : This is a new team! It's like how the Baltimore Ravens became a new team while the Cleveland Browns were put on hold for three years. I think Seattle will get a new team, and they will be named the SuperSonics, but until then, they're on hold until the city builds a new arena. I still don't get why we're including the team's 1979 NBA Championship template at the bottom of the new article. This team has been in existence for less than a day, I don't think they've been to the NBA Finals yet, and they sure as hell can't time travel to steal Seattle's championship either. This article should be separate like Ravens/Browns, Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals and so on. There are a bunch of articles on old NHL teams (Quebec Nordiques with Colorado Avalanche) so why not have this one be separate? conman33 (. . .talk) 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Its different from the Browns/Ravens thing because the Ravens were an expansion team in 1996 with no franchise history. The history is going with theteam to Oklahoma City and will be shared with the new Sonics team in Seattle when/if one is formed. This situation is more like the Expos/Nationals situation Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• After reading section 6, it is a "shared history". Odd that they'd do that. I really doubt that Seattle would get another team. Who is going to want to relocate there? And if the NBA expands they'll be going above 30 teams. I still say keep the SuperSonics page because they have 41 years of history including three NBA finals appearances. And even with my doubts, there is still a chance a team goes back there and they'd more than likely be named the Sonics if it is soon. --FourteenClowns (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Redo discussion

Normally, this would be a good time to declare consensus, but I think we should do a retake. There is obviously a rampant misunderstanding that the OKC team is essentially a new expansion club and that this situation is the same as the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens. So let's redo this with the correct information. The new OKC team is keeping the franchise history of the SuperSonics (though it will be shared with any future Seattle team) per the conditions of the settlement (See section 6: [2]), and therefore the team is not a clean slate. Its official franchise history will include the 41-year period that it was the Seattle SuperSonics. That was not the case with the Browns/Ravens, where the Ravens did not keep the franchise history and the Browns were allowed to appear as the sole successor to the previous Browns team.

So, while I oppose the merge, I think we need to take a moment before concluding this discussion as some opinions may change with this information. Okiefromokla ^complaints 22:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - this situation is most alike the Montreal Expos becoming the Washington Nationals. The franchise history was kept, yet they have separate articles. The Nationals article is very similar to how the current OKC team article is set up: The franchise history before moving to Washington is summarized in a paragraph-long section that links to the main article (Montreal Expos) while the Nationals infobox still includes the achievements of the Expos prior to the move. This seems like the best way to go at this point. Okiefromokla ^complaints 22:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above Jgera5 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - per above also. I think it's pretty much clear that we're all are virtually in agreement that the articles should remain seperate. I think the bigger issue here is the "shared history" and how it should be dealt with in the OKC article. Dknights411 (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just WP:SNOW this discussion. Nothing new is going to come of restarting this discussion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to remove the merger templates from the respective articles. It seems like this is still overwhelmingly in favor of no merge. Or someone else could do it. I'll wait a bit. Okiefromokla ^complaints 23:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lovelac7 00:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note about a merger

First, I am really sorry you guys lost your team. You just drafted a great player in Westbrook and Durant is gonna be a stud, so it's really going to be tough for you guys. This is disgusting. It IS NOT like Montreal, where very few people even cared, The Sonics have a deeply loyal fan base, as I found out first hand when the Bulls played them in the Finals years back.

THAT SAID - This article should be part of the Oklahoma City Team's Article. I dont see any reason why It would not be. I hear what is said about the Expos/Nationals, but I disagree. Check out the page for EVERY non-charter member sports team, they ALWAYS list the old teams. See Minnesota Twins, as it lists them as the Washington Senators in the same article, and the Milwaukee Brewers, which lists them as the Seattle Pilots in the same article. This goes on and on, thru baseball and other sports. In basketball nearly every team has this distinction. The Atlanta Hawks (Quad City Blackhawks), Washington Wizards (Baltimore Bullets), L.A. Clippers (Buffalo Braves), and Sacramento Kings (Cincinnati Royals then Kansas City Royals/Kings), all on the same Wikipedia page. This happens in the NFL pages with the Rams and Cardinals (though they kept the nicknames) and A LOT in the NHL. What they did there, I think, seems to be right. You can find, for example, in the Carolina Hurricanes page, a snapshot of the Hartford Whalers history, but then the Whalers also have their own page too.

In closing, why should these 3 teams (browns, sonics, expos) be treated seperately from ALL the others.... one reason.... because it happened recently and editors with strong ties dont want the francheses' combined. Nevertheless, they should be, as much as it does suck, but we have to keep Wikipedia consistent. Either way, hope you get a new squad.Wjmummert (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I feel that the way the Expos/Browns/Sonics articles are treated should be the way ALL relocated teams should be handled. I've always found it crazy that wikipedia doesn't have a seperate article for the Brooklyn Dodgers or the New York Giants, or even the Seattle Pilots. I feel that every relocation incarnation of a team in a different city should have its own article. I may be an idiot for thinking like that, but I stand by it. Dknights411 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Browns are a totally different case. When the original Browns moved to Baltimore they left EVERYTHING behind. The NFL considers their records to be a part of the new Cleveland Browns and not the Ravens. The Ravens were in reality considered an expansion team. So there shouldn't be a merger there. It should mentioned in their team history, but the Browns stay with the new Browns. The Sonics/OKC are doing something like that. They will have a shared history if the Sonics should return to the NBA. I would say to those who want a merger to stay patient and wait a couple years and see how this whole saga unfolds. I doubt Seattle gets another team and if that is right in the 5 years Stern gave then there should be a merger. But until then we should consider the Sonics a suspended franchise and the OKC team a quasi expansion team. The Expos should be merged into the Nats. That's a clear move and there is a not a popicle's chance in hell of another team being put there. --FourteenClowns (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument that another team could be put in Seattle is irrelevant per WP:FUTURE. What we know is this: the Seattle SuperSonics don't exist anymore and as such, users will most likely want to find the team page for their players, not the non-existent club. As for the Baltimore Ravens being an expansion team, that is not correct. All of the Browns players moved with the club, including Matt Stover. It was just the records which stayed in Cleveland.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Legally speaking the Baltimore Ravens were an expansion team who inherited the Browns roster, not the Browns under a new name and record. Anyway, there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a Brooklyn Dodgers article. However, I'm absolutely appalled to see that consensus was ignored and the Sonics page was merged with the OKC team. WP:Bold only goes so far. -MichiganCharms (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm demerging the articles for the time being as per the consensus on this talk page. Dknights411 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying about WP:FUTURE, but we shouldn't merge the pages together while the body is still warm. The Sonics are right now a suspended franchise. Why? Well, because the team colors and shared history was left behind. Whether you feel its unlikely or likely they'll get a team back is irrelevant right now. Lets let this play out before making any quick movements. --FourteenClowns (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not true. In reality, Clay Bennett will continue to own the name and colors until a new team is in place in Seattle (if that ever happens); the NBA doesn't allow team names and colors to be owned by anyone but a team owner, so the City of Seattle can't own them. The settlement specifies only that Bennett can't use the Seattle name and colors with the OKC team, but he will own them until a new team is in Seattle. So I disagree that the Sonics are "suspended" based on that point. I think the WP:FUTURE argument has a lot of merit. Okiefromokla ^complaints 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Browns/Ravens situation was slightly different from this one in three regards. #1, there actually was a credible deal in place to place a new team in Cleveland after the Ravens were (ostensibly) admitted as an expansion team. The league was planning to expand to 32 teams from 30; there was a solid plan to build a new stadium; and there was an ownership group prepared to step forward. The situation in Seattle is far more nebulous. #2, the Browns were one of the NFL's most famous teams. The Sonics were, frankly, mediocre. #3, an existing team would presumably use its own franchise history, as has been the case in all previous NBA moves. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we let the new team be named first, haha. Lets give this some time. The Sonics page is definitely notable and I don't see who it is hurting to have it. --FourteenClowns (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Trail Blazers GAN

Hi guys. I'm currently reviewing Portland Trail Blazers at GAN. The article is 99% there. The lead could do with being looked at, and there are otherwise two points I don't understand as a non-NBA fan. The proposer says he can't fix the minor issues left and it would be a huge shame to fail such an otherwise complete article. Any helpers out there? Peanut4 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a couple of comments at the talk page. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to fix some of the minor issues, but expanding the lead to incorporate the franchise history (cf. mere mention of number of titles won, playoffs made etc.) would be something I can't do. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose a portal

I'm going to propose a portal, because apparently it seems to be perfectly possible. Why is there no portal for the NBA? This portal will meet all portal standards, because we have enough articles and pictures. This is just a proposition to make an NBA portal. Cheers, Thisisborin9_{sign here!} 06:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So, does anyone agree to a NBA portal or turn the idea down? ;) Cheers, Thisisborin9_{sign here!} 16:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My fear would be passiveness leading to a portal in disuse. However, that is just my view; it's quite hard to predict how things would turn out, and easy to underestimate how far passion (and epiphanies) can take us. Chensiyuan (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware, but this exists: Portal:Basketball and would probably suffice. Gary King (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change importance scale

The importance scale here needs to be more in line with the Wikipedia release version criteria for importance. Mainly, my issue stems from the fact that teams can be rated differently on the importance scale and that the criteria for doing so is not well defined.

Anything of top importance, according to the release version criteria, "is a must-have for a good encyclopedia." Obviously, for any encyclopedia dealing with the NBA, having articles about each NBA team is an absolute must before virtually every other NBA-related topic. Regardless of what the current WP:NBA scale says, the reality is that all team articles are of higher priority for this project than seasons, plays, arenas, events, and players, with the possible exception of legendary stars like Michael Jordan. Hence, all NBA teams must be rated “top” importance; it's pretty common sense. The current scale leaves far too much to subjectivity and article ratings are all over the place, especialy for teams. Okiefromokla ^complaints 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all teams should be rated as "Top" in the importance scale.--Crzycheetah 02:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll start changing them. Okiefromokla ^complaints 15:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City GAN

Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City is now a Good Article nominee. Okiefromokla ^complaints 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Centralize NBA team colours

Since hardcoded colours tend to be modified by unfamiliar editors and thereby creating inconsistencies, I've written {{NBA color}} (similar to {{MLBPrimaryColor}} and {{MLBSecondaryColor}}) in an attempt to centralize the colour schemes. I collected the raw data from the roster templates; bg1 is primary, color1 is secondary, bg2 is tertiary, and color2 is quartenary. Are there any concerns before I start using the template? —LOL ^T/_C 18:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea.—Chris! _ct 18:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea, that looks great! Gary King (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just perfect, although some teams still need changes. If you want me to help, just leave a message at my talk page. ● 8~Hype ^@ 10:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with Timberwolves roster

The Timberwolves roster was recently reformatted by another user. I think it looks very good, but I've had a problem in that it broke all of the disambiguation links to players. Does anyone know how to link to the correct pages with the template done like this? Minnesota Timberwolves all-time roster is the link. matt91486 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the template documentation of {{sortname}}? {{sortname|first|last|optional link target}} should be all you need. —LOL ^T/_C 06:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that and see if it works. matt91486 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a rip-off of the Boston Celtics all-time roster. ● 8~Hype ^@ 10:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, but I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I think we should standardize all of them. matt91486 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad thing, at all. I'm also in favor of taking the Boston page as an example. ● 8~Hype ^@ 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

New website on college basketball stats

I just thought this project might want to know about [3]. So far it looks like a great website that is providing lots of stats for free on college basketball. It may have some use for professional basketball pages as well (since it has draft information). Anyways, just thought this project would want to know. Remember (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award

In the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award, an issue came up when I have trouble sourcing the following statement "Teams with Defensive Player of the Year Award winners have generally performed well in the postseason, as 9 out of 14 award winners have gone on to win NBA Championships." Does anyone here know where I can find a source for this sentence? Thanks in advanced. —Chris! _ct 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Responded here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OKC team name to be announced

KOCO in Oklahoma City is reporting that the team's new nickname is the "Thunder". This brings up the question as to WHEN do we move the current OKC article to its new home, and how do we guard against possible false reaction moves by other users. Dknights411 (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NBA season

There is a discussion on Template:Infobox NBA season. Editors are discussing which is the short form of "Eastern Conference" - "East" or "Eastern." (See the talk page) Since none of us can decide which is more suitable, I think the question should be raised here and see what people think.—Chris! _ct 22:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC) User:8-Hype thinks East is better while me and User:X96lee15 think Eastern is better.—Chris! _ct 22:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about thinking what is the short form, it's about determining what is the official form. Here are two examples (from NBA.com):

• The NBA.com's 2008 Playoff page: On the first picture, it says "Buy East Champ shirts", it doesn't read "Eastern Champ".
• Experts from NBA.com are referring to it as "East".
  • Maurice Brooks: "KG and Ray Ray make the Celtics the new beast of the East and at the very least, the top team in the Atlantic." Both short forms are used, it really shouldn't be "Beast of the Eastern".
  • Dave McMenamin: "I like Chicago to get out of the East because I just don't see Boston coming together that quickly and the Bulls' young talent is just starting to come into their own."
  • The headings say "East Champ" and "West Champ". Not "Eastern Champ".

On the experts page, "Eastern" isn't even mentioned once as the short form. It's plain and simple: In everyday life, "East" is the short form of "Eastern Conference". ● 8~Hype ^@ 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you notice that they all say the East, not East? The East is just a standard way in English for people to associate things concerning east. That doesn't mean East is the official short form for the Eastern Conference.—Chris! _ct 22:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you type "East Champ" on the search engine on nba.com, nothing useful comes back. Also on their standing, the nba uses Eastern and Western to show the conferences.—Chris! _ct 22:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As Chris! mentioned, I believe that "Eastern" should be used in the "Conference: Eastern" portion of the infobox. I won't rehash all my arguments from the talk page that was referenced above, but my main point is there is no reason to abbreviate "Eastern" to "East" when the official name of the conference is the "Eastern Conference" (I do not think that can be questioned).

I do think it's interesting that the original objection to changing it to "Eastern" was that there would be confusion between the Eastern Conference and the Eastern Division, now it's that "Eastern" is not a valid way to refer to the "Eastern Conference". — X96lee15 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Totals and averages

I checked the 1949-50 NBA season and I saw that scoring champion George Mikan's totals were indicated rather than his totals. Same goes with Dick McGuire's assists. I really think we should go with the averages rather than the totals. The totals aren't really that helpful because it doesn't show how many games the player played, basically the totals are pointless without the games played. The average is clearer and more helpful. It doesn't really matter if averages were only indicated prior to the 1969-70 season. The NBA's placing the league leaders averages and not totals and I think we should do the same even with the seasons before 1969-70 season.

Carlo ms06 (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1026 articles are assigned to this project, of which 157, or 15.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=NBA Project}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

I think the next Collaboration of the month should be Kobe Bryant just because it really needs a lot of cleanups. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 06:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it's the offseason now the article would be a little more stable. Let's see if any others are interested. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I'll be glad to help wherever I can. Btw guys, great job at getting the Yao Ming Article featured on the Main page of Wiki. -- $user log ^(Talk) @ 00:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by $user log (talk • contribs)

Game logs

I've seen two main layouts; I'll call them A and B. Which one should we take? I'm planning to generate the logs for each team in the 2008–09 season, now that the schedule has been released. —LOL ^T/_C 22:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

B is aesthetically more pleasing. Would the logs need to be updated manually after each game? Chensiyuan (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, B is more pleasing. Just so you know, the Lakers template is already done.--Crzycheetah 01:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually like A better. It is simple and clean. I also hate the fact that on the B layout, I have to click [show] in order to see the log.—Chris! _ct 01:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A version is too long, that's why B version with hide/show was created. When the season starts, current month will be automatically in the "show" mode.--Crzycheetah 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If each month can automatically be set in the "show" mode, then I guess the B layout is ok, too.—Chris! _ct 02:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Layout B seems to be more popular, so I've created {{NBA game log start}}, {{NBA game log section}}, and {{NBA game log end}} for maintenance and standardization purposes; here is an example of their application. With the section template, we can change which month to be automatically shown, without having to edit 30 templates.

If I can get a bot approved, it can automatically update the logs except for the Location/Attendance column because my HttpClient has trouble accessing NBA.com's box scores (can't handle some scripts). Is there another site that has the attendance of each game? In addition, I'm using basketball-reference, which doesn't get updated immediately after the game. —LOL ^T/_C 02:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

ESPN.com is another site, see this box score.--Crzycheetah 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. That'll do, and it'll be even better if everything there's updated real-time. —LOL ^T/_C 03:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It has just come to my attention that the 2007–08 logs with layout B display the opponent's team name instead of their city (e.g. "@ Sixers" is "@ Philadelphia", "Lakers" is L.A. Lakers). Should I change the 2008–09 game logs to display the cities, or change the 2007–08 logs to display the team names? It was argued that cities are more recognizable than team names. Another issue was raised concerning the collapsible tables. Do they need to be collapsed by default? —LOL ^T/_C 02:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My pref is team names; collapsible. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Both NBA.com and ESPN.com use city names, so I think it's quite clear that it should be that way. People who aren't diehards won't recognize a team by their team name. I also don't think the months should be collapsed just to save space. I would also like to add a row to all the game logs with the label "NBA All-Star Weekend" in order to seperate between - as many people like to call them - the "first" and the "second half" of the season (Example: {{2008–09 Boston Celtics season game log}}). ● 8~Hype ^@ 05:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I just opened up a random nba.com boxscore and it doesn't use the city format. In the schedules the city format is used but in the box scores team names are used. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but game logs are not box scores, they are schedules, which means the city name has to be used. ● 8~Hype ^@ 06:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Player nicknames

On Andrei Kirilenko's talk page someone was wondering if his nickname (AK47) can be included in the Infobox. I was thinking probably not; however, that's simply an assumption. I didn't want to confirm or deny, which is why I brought this to you guys. Does WikiProject NBA have a standpoint on whether or not NBA Players can have that in the Infobox? Thanks. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't think the infobox still reflects nicks. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion took place at Template talk:Infobox NBA Player#Nickname parameter; the nickname parameter was removed as a result. —LOL ^T/_C 06:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the speedy response. You guys rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.38.225 (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nowitzki or Nash

Who's interested in taking either GAs to the next level? Principally, I think we should rope in 2-3 people outside this project for peer review. Those folks should be good at copyediting too. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2007–08 Boston Celtics season

I have put a lot of work into this article, and I would like to know if it qualifies as FAC, at the very least GAC? ● 8~Hype ^@ 04:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to review the article and comment on it. ● 8~Hype ^@ 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Have left comments. Many major issues. Chensiyuan (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)